Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2012 Elections => Topic started by: Phony Moderate on March 11, 2012, 04:20:13 PM



Title: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Phony Moderate on March 11, 2012, 04:20:13 PM
This guy is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination people. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/17/santorum-gay-marriage-tanked-the-economy)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 11, 2012, 04:24:55 PM
This guy is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination people. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/17/santorum-gay-marriage-tanked-the-economy)

Hint:  He's in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party.  He could win the Republican nomination with the hardcore base of the party and the tea party.  He would undoubtedly have a more difficult time in the general election when you throw in Democrats and, especially, Independents who are disgruntled with the current administration.  Anyway, this is all pretty much a moot point because it's looking like Mitt Romney will win the nomination.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Phony Moderate on March 11, 2012, 04:34:24 PM
This guy is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination people. (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/17/santorum-gay-marriage-tanked-the-economy)

Hint:  He's in the Republican Party, not in the Democratic Party.  He could win the Republican nomination with the hardcore base of the party and the tea party.  He would undoubtedly have a more difficult time in the general election when you throw in Democrats and, especially, Independents who are disgruntled with the current administration.  Anyway, this is all pretty much a moot point because it's looking like Mitt Romney will win the nomination.

Of course, the GOP 'establishment' should take a stand against those people and abolish primaries altogether. That way, the Republicans would be more likely to have decent candidates in a similar mould to Eisenhower, Nixon, Rockefeller, Goldwater etc.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 04:35:30 PM
I love, incidentally, how far enough gone we are that Goldwater is named along with Eisenhower, Nixon, and Rockefeller in the list of sane, easily-worked-with Republican presidentabili past.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook on March 11, 2012, 04:45:05 PM
Wait a minute: Nixon is sane!?!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ajb on March 11, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Guess it wasn't gas prices after all.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on March 11, 2012, 04:50:28 PM
Guess it wasn't gas prices after all.

Well current gas prices were obviously caused by condoms. 


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 04:51:07 PM

Good point.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Phony Moderate on March 11, 2012, 04:53:02 PM

Relatively speaking....


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 11, 2012, 04:57:01 PM
Wasn't there a study done once that proves that gay marriage is an economic boost for states where it was legalized?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on March 11, 2012, 05:03:15 PM

He misspoke. :)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 11, 2012, 05:36:52 PM
Silly people. Don't you know that traditional values are the only solution for all problems?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 11, 2012, 05:38:04 PM
It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: RI on March 11, 2012, 05:39:07 PM
Did anyone check the *cough*Stranger*cough* article that he linked to? Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on March 11, 2012, 05:40:49 PM
Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Oh yes. Now, after you specified, his point is suddenly coherent.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 05:59:37 PM
Gay marriage = erosion of the nuclear family = poorer educational performance and discipline of the offspring = economic sub-performance of said offspring.  

Is there any error in the application of the transitive principle here?  What am I missing?   Can someone "help" me here?

By the way, just to get past the nomenclature game, as to which so many seem so obsessed, does Rick also oppose gay civil unions?  If not, just why do civil unions not lead to the break up of the nuclear family (among heteros presumably, who are the "breeders"), while when you change the name to "marriage," everything goes to hell and a hand basket? If not (Rick also opposes civil unions), then there in my opinion is a bit more robustness to Rick's transitive principle application, at last for those who don't think monikers are worth a warm bucket of spit in changing anything in this context (the exacerbation of the "collapse" of the family).  Phil?

Oh, Rick said this last August. Maybe he has tacked a bit since then. I mean, maybe Mittens is not the only one who tacks. Is that possible?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Averroës Nix on March 11, 2012, 06:10:49 PM
It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 06:13:46 PM
It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

Has Mittens said that gay unions/marriage leads to economic sub-performance over time?  Is so, I would be interested in seeing that in text. Because that would suggest disingenuousness  - or idiocy.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Averroës Nix on March 11, 2012, 06:22:58 PM
It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

Has Mittens said that gay unions/marriage leads to economic sub-performance over time?  Is so, I would be interested in seeing that in text. Because that would suggest disingenuousness  - or idiocy.

Not directly - but then again, what does Mittens say directly when he's campaigning? There is this, though, from the Saint Anselm debate:

Quote from: Mitt Romney
But it’s instead a recognition that, for society as a whole, that the nation presumably will -- would be better off if -- if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female. And there are many cases where there’s not possible: divorce, death, single parents, gay parents, and so forth.

Obviously not the same thing - but that wasn't really my point. What I'm getting at is that Romney, while less likely to put his foot in his mouth over the issue, isn't campaigning based on a position any different from Santorum's. We could choose not to take his remarks at face value - but is there any good reason to do that?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 06:41:07 PM
By the own admission of conservatives, you cannot blame nor force anything on the gay community that would take away their "freedom".

If conservative heterosexuals can form a "holy union" after having a bastard child out of wedlock and are allowed to enter and break those vows at will (because it is a state institution and not a religious one), then homosexuals can do the same without fear nor need of conservative opinion or concern of the effects on the economy.

If conservatives can raise their children without government involvement by giving them a sh**tty religious home-schooled education and by filling them full of Mountain Dew, Cheetos and the Holy Spirit, then two homosexuals can freely agree to conceive a child in whatever capacity and raise he or she in the image that they see fit.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 06:53:07 PM
It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

Has Mittens said that gay unions/marriage leads to economic sub-performance over time?  Is so, I would be interested in seeing that in text. Because that would suggest disingenuousness  - or idiocy.

Not directly - but then again, what does Mittens say directly when he's campaigning? There is this, though, from the Saint Anselm debate:

Quote from: Mitt Romney
But it’s instead a recognition that, for society as a whole, that the nation presumably will -- would be better off if -- if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female. And there are many cases where there’s not possible: divorce, death, single parents, gay parents, and so forth.

Obviously not the same thing - but that wasn't really my point. What I'm getting at is that Romney, while less likely to put his foot in his mouth over the issue, isn't campaigning based on a position any different from Santorum's. We could choose not to take his remarks at face value - but is there any good reason to do that?


Not the same at all actually. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It might have something to do with gay adoption.  And I am not sure Mittens would oppose gay adoption, if the alternative, is leaving some kid without any parents at all.  Obviously I disagree with the concept that gays make inferior parents. I know gay parents who have adopted, and all of them have been fantastic, and doting, parents, and don't think they should be at the back of the line to adopt (and in CA they are not thankfully). It is total bullsh**t really.

You know what would be an interesting question to ask Mittens?  If the choice were a single parent family (which Mittens abhors), or a two gay parent family, which on balance would in general be preferable?  I wonder what his answer would be. I think I might make "arrangements" to ask him. I have my little channels. :)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 06:57:23 PM
Quote
Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Isn't it odd how Santorum is supposed to be wild and crazy, but when you actually read what he says, he's sensible?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 06:59:18 PM
Quote
If conservative heterosexuals can form a "holy union" after having a bastard child out of wedlock and are allowed to enter and break those vows at will (because it is a state institution and not a religious one), then homosexuals can do the same without fear nor need of conservative opinion or concern of the effects on the economy.

If conservatives can raise their children without government involvement by giving them a sh**tty religious home-schooled education and by filling them full of Mountain Dew, Cheetos and the Holy Spirit, then two homosexuals can freely agree to conceive a child in whatever capacity and raise he or she in the image that they see fit.

So comparing good parents to terrible ones is supposed to be a compelling argument in favor?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:04:58 PM
Quote
Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Isn't it odd how Santorum is supposed to be wild and crazy, but when you actually read what he says, he's sensible?

You think this is "sensible" as opposed to nutter?:

"this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken...."

One of the horrible "those" (along with not supporting nuclear families and abortion) is gay marriage, in Rick's world. That is what the text means. Period. Maybe although Rick has a law degree, he is a poor lawyer, and is sloppy about what he says. I guess that is another explanation, except he has said this sort of thing about how gay marriage is societally toxic - again and again.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:05:43 PM
Torie:

Quote
Letting the family break down and in fact encouraging it and inciting more breakdown through this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken.... If you think that we can be a society that [that] disregards the family and the important role it plays, and doesn’t teach moral values and the important role of faith in the public square, and then expect people to be good, decent and moral when they behave economically, if you look at the root cause of the economic problems that we’re dealing with on Wall Street and Main Street I might add, from 2008, they were huge moral failings."

It's actually a really simple argument.

You've heard of the 'broken window' approach to crime? What it argues is that neglect, in the form of broken windows encourages crime, and can be more effective then policing after the fact. If people see that the small things are taken care of, then there will be fewer break-ins.

Whereas if it's left as it is, it encourages crime, because people believe that there will be no repercussions.

Santorum's arguing that the same thing works for marriage.

We know that families that are married make more money than families that are not married. This is something that's been shown for quite some time.

Gay marriage weakens the natural family, because you're arguing that 'sex doesn't matter', and that there is no such thing as 'men' or 'women' that would actually be relevant to marriage.

If gay marriage is more likely to lead to relationships outside of marriage, then gay marriage is going to hurt the economy as it forms unstable unions that are more likely to break up as well as discouraging marriage altogether.

That's what Santorum is getting at. It makes sense, but you have to have some of the background to understand the premisses.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 07:06:34 PM
Quote
If conservative heterosexuals can form a "holy union" after having a bastard child out of wedlock and are allowed to enter and break those vows at will (because it is a state institution and not a religious one), then homosexuals can do the same without fear nor need of conservative opinion or concern of the effects on the economy.

If conservatives can raise their children without government involvement by giving them a sh**tty religious home-schooled education and by filling them full of Mountain Dew, Cheetos and the Holy Spirit, then two homosexuals can freely agree to conceive a child in whatever capacity and raise he or she in the image that they see fit.

So comparing good parents to terrible ones is supposed to be a compelling argument in favor?

The idea of "terrible parents" is very much based on your views of parenting. Both examples - for conservatives and liberals - are "terrible" when viewed through the eyes of the opposing force. My argument is that if conservatives want the ability to run their families, children and opportunities in the way they see fit, even if it is viewed as detrimental by others, then those individuals must also be prepared to accept a similar circumstance when it comes to other families that do not fit within their worldview.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:07:59 PM
Quote
You think this is "sensible" as opposed to nutter?

Yessir. What he actually says makes sense here.

It's the broken window effect from crime applied to marriage and society. Keep the windows fixed and in good repair, and you avoid much of the problems that are becoming endemic in society.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:10:08 PM
Quote
The idea of "terrible parents" is very much based on your views of parenting.

Uh, I think you were going for the 'terrible' parenting with the ones who chug mountain dew.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but you're comparing "good parents" your first example, to "bad parents" in your second example.

Or have I misunderstood you?

Saying that because some people are crappy parents means that everyone is a crappy parent isn't going to get you where you want to go.

You want to say that because some not gay parents suck at parenting, ergo, gay people should be permitted because they suck less is a terrible argument.

Really it is. Go back and look at it again.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:11:55 PM
What evidence is there that gay marriages are more unstable than hetero ones, and in particular that gays who are married or unioned who have adopted are more unstable? One would think it is intuitively obvious that a married or unioned gay relationship is more stable than one that is not for starters. But here we are focusing on kids, so what is relevant is gays with kids, isn't it?

Whether gays not in the kid business marry or not without kids seems wholly unrelated to any economic argument, unless you think legalizing gay marriage or unions leads to more folks going gay, which is yet another assertion that if made, needs to be empirical documented, because facially it seems ludicrous.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ajb on March 11, 2012, 07:14:14 PM
It really says something about Mitt Romney's weakness that this guy is consistently running neck in neck with him, instead of being destroyed in a landslide as he would be against any half-competent politician.

As far as I can tell, the policies that Romney is running on are in no meaningful way to the left of those of Santorum. And for every time that Santorum mentions sex, Romney obnoxiously reminds us of his wealth.

Has Mittens said that gay unions/marriage leads to economic sub-performance over time?  Is so, I would be interested in seeing that in text. Because that would suggest disingenuousness  - or idiocy.

Not directly - but then again, what does Mittens say directly when he's campaigning? There is this, though, from the Saint Anselm debate:

Quote from: Mitt Romney
But it’s instead a recognition that, for society as a whole, that the nation presumably will -- would be better off if -- if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female. And there are many cases where there’s not possible: divorce, death, single parents, gay parents, and so forth.

Obviously not the same thing - but that wasn't really my point. What I'm getting at is that Romney, while less likely to put his foot in his mouth over the issue, isn't campaigning based on a position any different from Santorum's. We could choose not to take his remarks at face value - but is there any good reason to do that?


Not the same at all actually. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. It might have something to do with gay adoption.  And I am not sure Mittens would oppose gay adoption, if the alternative, is leaving some kid without any parents at all.  Obviously I disagree with the concept that gays make inferior parents. I know gay parents who have adopted, and all of them have been fantastic, and doting, parents, and don't think they should be at the back of the line to adopt (and in CA they are not thankfully). It is total bullsh**t really.

You know what would be an interesting question to ask Mittens?  If the choice were a single parent family (which Mittens abhors), or a two gay parent family, which on balance would in general be preferable?  I wonder what his answer would be. I think I might make "arrangements" to ask him. I have my little channels. :)

Mitt Romney on same-sex marriage:
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/on-gay-marriage-mitt-romney-veers-hard-to-the-right/2012/02/07/gIQALE48wQ_blog.html

Look, I find it comical when Rick Santorum tries to draw a link between gay marriage and recession. But Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage is just as unequivocal as Rick Santorum's.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 07:14:39 PM
Except, Ben:

1. "Gay marriage weakens the natural family, because you're arguing that 'sex doesn't matter'" is an unfalsifiable claim whose proponents have consistently failed to furnish empirical evidence.

2. It ignores the positive effects of monogamy in general; in essence, it creates a "broken window" of normalized non-monogamy among gays.  If you are arguing that the gays' "broken window" in terms of "de-gendering" marriage affects heterosexual relationships, how can you ignore this effect, which seems like it would obviously outweigh the one you mention.

3. I have never seen any argument or indication that childless heterosexual relationships, or heterosexual relationships with adoptive children, have had any sort of this "broken window" effect -- which renders an already abstract, unfalsifiable claim even trickier to accept.

No?  I mean, I agree that it's not nutter versus some arguments out there, but do you actually find it a compelling argument?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 07:18:33 PM
Quote
The idea of "terrible parents" is very much based on your views of parenting.

Uh, I think you were going for the 'terrible' parenting with the ones who chug mountain dew.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but you're comparing "good parents" your first example, to "bad parents" in your second example.

Or have I misunderstood you?

Obviously, I'm biased, but the argument in general is not. All you have to do is flip the paradigm to understand it, but that does require some form of empathy. The seeming debate (at least the title of the post) is on how gay marriage is detrimental to the economy. Based on that argument, conservatives view the other spectrum (the ones who don't chug Mountain Dew) as "terrible". My argument flips that perspective and creates an equal yet opposite position, which is the point I'm trying to make.

If gay couples are "terrible" parents and cause undue harm to the economy by filling their childrens' heads with the homosexual agenda and liberal ideas, then the same can be said for conservatives who defend the right to fill their children with unhealthy substances and religious indoctrination, which often restricts intellectual capacity and overall physical well-being, which in turn causes economic damage (or at least, the lack of economic prosperity).

The argument can easily be summarized as this: if you want the right to run your own life and those of your family, then you cannot expect to dictate to others how they are in the wrong for doing the same thing.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:20:11 PM
Quote
Look, I find it comical when Rick Santorum tries to draw a link between gay marriage and recession. But Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage is just as unequivocal as Rick Santorum's.

Yes, but it is not tied to economic performance. It is based on moral grounds, just like the Catholic Church. The one assertion is basically nutter, the second is just one of those a priori metaphysical things. There is a difference. The one I can respect, even if I disagree, and I will oppose that point of view at the ballot box. The other is just plain ass wrong, because it makes empirical assertions that have no substantiation, and seems ludicrous on its face to boot.  


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:21:02 PM
Quote
What evidence is there that gay marriages are more unstable than hetero ones, and in particular that gays who are married or unioned who have adopted are more unstable?

Well, as it's been shown in Canada, something like 1 percent of gay folks choose to get married. Which means that gay marriage is pointless. Why bother? There's no demand for it.

Quote
One would think it is intuitively obvious that a married or unioned gay relationship is more stable than one that is not for starters.

But that's not what I'm talking about here. If you recognise all different types of relationships as 'marriage', then you are rewarding people for choosing other options. If you want to see a specific type of behavior, reward single moms for being single with plenty of goodies.

And this is what we are seeing. People who love each other are seeing that Marriage - really doesn't symbolize the extent of their love so they are doing other things. This is a consequence of 'changing the definition'.

If 10 percent of people choose not to get married whom otherwise would, that's a very significant and long-term effect on the overall wellbeing.

Quote
But here we are focusing on kids, so what is relevant is gays with kids, isn't it?

It's relevant to everyone. You're separating, "marriage" from "having children" and there are negative economic consequences associated with that too.

I'm not saying, and I know Santorum's not saying that gay marriage is the root of all this - rather gay marriage is a symptom of problems that have been going on for quite some time. Look at out of wedlock births and you'll start to see what I, and Santorum are getting at. In 1955, 95 percent of black children were born in wedlock, now it's a minority.



Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:26:11 PM
Oh now we are on the track (yours, not Rick's) that if gays get married, less heteros will, and just breed more "bastard" children, or not breed at all. Is there any evidence of that?  When you are going to deny a class or persons equal rights, and degrade their relationship, you damn well better have good empirical evidence that they need to take a hit for the good of society as a whole. Otherwise, you deserve to lose the argument in the public square in my opinion.

Yes, out of wedlock births are rampant these days. That trend started long before the gay thing reared its "ugly" head. I am sure that you are aware of the actual reasons why that are typically listed, which have nothing to do with what gays do, which as you say, are just a blip on the radar screen in numbers vis a vis the gay marriage issue.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 07:28:02 PM
Quote from: Ben Kenobi
Well, as it's been shown in Canada, something like 1 percent of gay folks choose to get married. Which means that gay marriage is pointless. Why bother? There's no demand for it.

Well, as it's been shown in the US, something like 2 percent of kids are homeschooled. Which means that homeschooling is pointless. Why bother? There's no demand for it.

Quote from: Ben Kenobi
But that's not what I'm talking about here. If you recognise all different types of relationships as 'marriage', then you are rewarding people for choosing other options. If you want to see a specific type of behavior, reward single moms for being single with plenty of goodies.

And this is what we are seeing. People who love each other are seeing that Marriage - really doesn't symbolize the extent of their love so they are doing other things. This is a consequence of 'changing the definition'.

If 10 percent of people choose not to get married whom otherwise would, that's a very significant and long-term effect on the overall wellbeing.

Legitimizing something is not the same as rewarding it. It also doesn't necessarily encourage that behavior; I don't think we'll see all that many heterosexual couples converting their traditional marriage into a gay one.  


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:28:19 PM
Quote
1. "Gay marriage weakens the natural family, because you're arguing that 'sex doesn't matter'" is an unfalsifiable claim whose proponents have consistently failed to furnish empirical evidence.

Ok, let's go back a bit.

Do you believe that gay marriage argues that the sex you happen to be is irrelevant to your marital relationship? Yes or no?

How do you reconcile this position with the understanding of the marital union as consummation? Are you now arguing that consummation is unnecessary in a marital relationship?

Quote
2. It ignores the positive effects of monogamy in general; in essence, it creates a "broken window" of normalized non-monogamy among gays.

Gay people don't WANT marriage. They aren't getting married in Canada. Ergo, if 'increasing monogamy' is the goal, than gay marriage is an outright failure.

Quote
If you are arguing that the gays' "broken window" in terms of "de-gendering" marriage affects heterosexual relationships, how can you ignore this effect, which seems like it would obviously outweigh the one you mention.

Not when 1 percent of gay people are getting married. That's a tiny number. Even if the total number of marriages dropped by a tenth of a percent, the negative repercussions would far outweigh the positives.

And yes, marriage rates continue to drop.

Quote
3. I have never seen any argument or indication that childless heterosexual relationships, or heterosexual relationships with adoptive children, have had any sort of this "broken window" effect -- which renders an already abstract, unfalsifiable claim even trickier to accept.

It's not a hard argument. Look at births out of wedlock. Those born out of wedlock are much less likely to do well.

No?  I mean, I agree that it's not nutter versus some arguments out there, but do you actually find it a compelling argument?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:31:21 PM
Quote
Is there any evidence of that?

Look at marriage percentages and out of wedlock births among white people over most recent years.

Quote
When you are going to deny a class or persons equal rights

If they are not interested in it, then there is no need to grant them that which they do not want.

Quote
Otherwise, you deserve to lose the argument in the public square in my opinion.

If they want gay marriage to stick around, then they should actually make use of it.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:33:22 PM
Just because two thing happen at the same time, does not mean there is a causal relationship, particularly if one of those things started happening far earlier, for rather obvious non gay related reasons. Such partial simultaneity in such a context is really no evidence at all, and if you wrote an academic paper with just that, and not more, it would be trashed in the ivory tower for precisely those reasons.

Any gays should not have the right to get married, because a relatively small percentage will avail themselves of that right?  Really?  It is down to a numbers game? The number involved is too small to give a damn about their equality in the public square?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 07:33:31 PM
This argument is absurd. Just because gay people are not marrying in droves does not mean there is no support for gay marriage. Engaging in the act and desiring the right to be able to engage in the act are two different things. Only 11% of Americans own a firearm, but I guarantee you more than 11% of the country supports the right to bear arms.

Gay couples that do get married have been shown in numerous studies to have far more stable home lives, higher incomes and children that are better prepared to do well in school. Gay people don't procreate by accident. Your argument, Ben Kenobi, is correct in the sense that a strong family unit increases the likelihood of a child succeeding, but it is not correct within the narrow definition that you wish to enforce it.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
Quote
Well, as it's been shown in the US, something like 2 percent of kids are homeschooled. Which means that homeschooling is pointless. Why bother? There's no demand for it.

What do you think would happen if you exempted homeschooling parents from school taxes?

Quote
Legitimizing something is not the same as rewarding it.

Yes, it is. There are public benefits that are associated with it.

Quote
It also doesn't necessarily encourage that behavior; I don't think we'll see all that many heterosexual couples converting their traditional marriage into a gay one.

Not arguing that. I'm saying that they have no reason to convert their common law relationship into marriage, if they can obtain the same benefits without having to make the commitment.

Works this way with most things. Subsidize something, and you'll see more of it.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ajb on March 11, 2012, 07:35:20 PM
Quote
Is there any evidence of that?

Look at marriage percentages and out of wedlock births among white people over most recent years.

Quote
When you are going to deny a class or persons equal rights

If they are not interested in it, then there is no need to grant them that which they do not want.

Quote
Otherwise, you deserve to lose the argument in the public square in my opinion.

If they want gay marriage to stick around, then they should actually make use of it.

I've always thought that the general relaxing of divorce laws forty-some years ago was more likely to be responsible for the "broken windows" side of things. So would you support making it harder for couples to get divorced?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 07:36:13 PM
Quote
What evidence is there that gay marriages are more unstable than hetero ones, and in particular that gays who are married or unioned who have adopted are more unstable?

Well, as it's been shown in Canada, something like 1 percent of gay folks choose to get married. Which means that gay marriage is pointless. Why bother? There's no demand for it.

I'm really going to need a citation on that. Who is measuring it? Everybody I know who is gay and in a long-term relationship either wants to get married or already is. Even if this statistic is legit, is it possible that the very low rate of gay marriage might have something to do with the relative difficulty of finding a marriageable partner who is attracted to the same sex as opposed to one who is attracted to the other in the first place? Also, how does this compare to marriage rates in Canada in general?

Quote
One would think it is intuitively obvious that a married or unioned gay relationship is more stable than one that is not for starters.

But that's not what I'm talking about here. If you recognise all different types of relationships as 'marriage', then you are rewarding people for choosing other options. If you want to see a specific type of behavior, reward single moms for being single with plenty of goodies.

And this is what we are seeing. People who love each other are seeing that Marriage - really doesn't symbolize the extent of their love so they are doing other things. This is a consequence of 'changing the definition'.

If 10 percent of people choose not to get married whom otherwise would, that's a very significant and long-term effect on the overall wellbeing. [/quote]

Certainly, but I think that other things than gay marriage contribute to that. For instance, I think that it's to an extent an effect of the social and cultural atomization caused by the concept of the nuclear family itself. This sets 'marriage' apart as 'the way to found a family', and undercuts it when people realize that families can be and often are founded in other ways. This is why I don't support nuclear families but extended families, in which even if people do choose to eschew marriage for whatever reason there is an inbuilt system of social support and the same sort of social microcosm that the 'nuclear' family entails, except (in my view) considerably better. Incidentally, if the extended family or at least some parts of it are accepting of a member's homosexuality, that member could, one imagines, get gay-married and be involved in the upbringing of biologically related children with much more ease than in the atomized family structure we've been experimenting with for the past sixty-five-odd years.

Quote
Quote
But here we are focusing on kids, so what is relevant is gays with kids, isn't it?

It's relevant to everyone. You're separating, "marriage" from "having children" and there are negative economic consequences associated with that too.


I agree with this, but I'm not of the opinion that gay people having children is to be discouraged, again, particularly if there's a big lovely cornucopia of extended relatives to go around as potential childrearers and role models of whatever gender one might feel is necessary.

Quote
I'm not saying, and I know Santorum's not saying that gay marriage is the root of all this - rather gay marriage is a symptom of problems that have been going on for quite some time. Look at out of wedlock births and you'll start to see what I, and Santorum are getting at. In 1955, 95 percent of black children were born in wedlock, now it's a minority.

I agree with you that marriage is institutionally broken. I view gay marriage as a way to salvage something of value from that brokenness. As with all else there were problems with the way marriage was done from the beginning, and just because it's worse than it used to be in a lot of ways doesn't mean there aren't still ways in which it can be made better.

I also really don't see how extending the marriage franchise in this manner is necessarily of a piece with subsidizing unmarried cohabitation. In fact it seems to me rather the opposite. I'd like to see serious campaigns towards getting gay couples to marry in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:37:03 PM
Quote
Just because two thing happen at the same time, does not mean there is a causal relationship, particularly if one of those things started happening far earlier, for rather obvious non gay related reasons.

Now you're conceding that empirical evidence does in fact exist for Santorum's thesis. You're right that there can be and are other reasons for this, which is what Santorum's thesis argues.

He sees gay marriage as a symptom, not a cause.

Quote
Any gays should not have the right to get married, because a relatively small percentage will avail themselves of that right?  Really?  It is down to a numbers game? The number involved is too small to give a damn about their equality in the public square?

It's pretty hard to argue that you are being oppressed when 99 percent stay exactly the same as before.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 07:38:42 PM
Quote
I've always thought that the general relaxing of divorce laws forty-some years ago was more likely to be responsible for the "broken windows" side of things. So would you support making it harder for couples to get divorced?

Absolutely. I think it's in the interest of society to discourage divorce.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oakvale on March 11, 2012, 07:41:23 PM
Don't dismiss this, guys. Sodom had an infamously weak economy.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ajb on March 11, 2012, 07:42:45 PM
Quote
I've always thought that the general relaxing of divorce laws forty-some years ago was more likely to be responsible for the "broken windows" side of things. So would you support making it harder for couples to get divorced?

Absolutely. I think it's in the interest of society to discourage divorce.
In that case, given that changes in divorce law have been around for a long time, and have demonstrably contributed to the failure of millions of marriages, while same-sex marriage is still illegal and constitutionally prohibited in most states, shouldn't conservatives who care about preserving the traditional family place a higher priority on changing divorce laws, rather than on fighting gay marriage? Aren't conservatives in fact endangering the family themselves, by not pushing back against divorce laws?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:43:10 PM
Quote
Just because two thing happen at the same time, does not mean there is a causal relationship, particularly if one of those things started happening far earlier, for rather obvious non gay related reasons.

Now you're conceding that empirical evidence does in fact exist for Santorum's thesis. You're right that there can be and are other reasons for this, which is what Santorum's thesis argues.

He sees gay marriage as a symptom, not a cause.

No I am conceding that for a portion of the period involved both happened at the same time, although most of the decline in family stability occurred before gay marriage became an issue (for obvious non gay marriage related reasons). And you seem to be conceding that while gay marriage may be a "symptom" of something bad (I am still not sure what), banning it is not the cure. If banning it has no efficacy, then why should we ban it denying a class of persons equal rights in the public square?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:45:30 PM
Don't dismiss this, guys. Sodom had an infamously weak economy.

But gay friendly Athens had a fantastic one, until those "gay" Spartan warriors spoiled it all. So yes, gays can be bad for the economy come to think of it, if their armies beat your ass up. :P


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 07:48:39 PM
Ok, let's go back a bit.

Do you believe that gay marriage argues that the sex you happen to be is irrelevant to your marital relationship? Yes or no?

Obviously no, because I'm not dumb.  I believe that gay marriage argues that the sex you happen to be is irrelevant to the ends of the policy position.  That does not mean it's irrelevant to things that are pertinent to marriage or marriage policy, like procreative ability.  The fact that two situations are treated as the same in the broad policy does not mean they are the same, or that their equal treatment implies that the considerations are the same.

How do you reconcile this position with the understanding of the marital union as consummation? Are you now arguing that consummation is unnecessary in a marital relationship?

You'll have to tell me more about my understanding of the marital union as consummation.

Gay people don't WANT marriage. They aren't getting married in Canada. Ergo, if 'increasing monogamy' is the goal, than gay marriage is an outright failure.

Putting aside the fact that I'm not sure looking at gay marriage stats as conclusive after a few years makes much sense...a marginal effect is not the same as a non-effect.  You know what a non-failing policy is?  One that's 0.0001% better, in net, than the previous policy.

Not when 1 percent of gay people are getting married. That's a tiny number. Even if the total number of marriages dropped by a tenth of a percent, the negative repercussions would far outweigh the positives.

Your basic argument, although it's kind of confusing, seems to be that the dilution of the meaning of "marriage" so as to render sex irrelevant, has the potential to discourage people from entering marital relationships.  You argue that this "breaks" marriage,

Your argument has a few apparent flaws to me:

1. You're treating marginal effects as non-effects (selectively.)

2. You're dismissing positive externalities in the case of incentivizing gay monogamy, and I'm not sure why.

3. You're assuming that early marriage rates encapsulate all direct positives and positive externalities of gay marriage, and I'm not sure why.

4. You are assuming that including gays will structurally effect the institution of marriage, by the simple change of definition, as opposed to be limited to being a negative externality.  Basically, you're treating gay relationships as having externalities limited by their numbers when it's inconvenient to your argument, and having structural externalities to the whole institution when it's convenient to your argument.

5. You seem to be ignoring the parallel argument that incentivizing institutional monogamy would have a structural effect in encouraging long-term monogamy among all populations.  I don't see that as being any more falsifiable than your claim here, and yet you believe one but not the other.

6. Even if you can find a good enough reason to dismiss #5, this whole thing is based on secondary and tertiary correlations and yet you seem utterly confident of it for some inexplicable reason.  And, yet, you're dismissing marginal effects as being non-effects.  That seems whack to me.

I might be overcomplicating things here a little, but your argument seems like a mess.  A nuanced mess, but a mess.

It's not a hard argument. Look at births out of wedlock. Those born out of wedlock are much less likely to do well.

What does that have to do with childless or child-adopting heterosexual relationships (like the portion you quoted), and how does this all relate to the "consummation norm" or whatever?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
Quote from: Ben Kenobi
What do you think would happen if you exempted homeschooling parents from school taxes?

This speculation steps away from the argument and diverges into a different policy question. While I realize I mentioned homeschool initially, I did so to give a reference point to a conservative talking point that emphasizes the rights of individuals to do as they choose in the hopes of demonstrating how people of all ideologies do things that may not be in the best interests of their children, families or themselves but should still be allowed to do so.


Quote from: Ben Kenobi
Yes, it is. There are public benefits that are associated with it.

A reward is an offering that comes with no strings attached. The contract of marriage comes with real-life benefits AND responsibilities, in all forms (financially, emotionally, spiritually, etc). You also cannot label it as a "reward" when the vast majority of the country is already capable of taking advantage of these benefits (which I'm assuming you mean things like tax benefits). What are you thinking, "Well I guess those filthy gays can get married but it's a reward and a privilege, not a right"?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: retromike22 on March 11, 2012, 07:50:01 PM
Don't dismiss this, guys. Sodom had an infamously weak economy.

But gay friendly Athens had a fantastic one, until those "gay" Spartan warriors spoiled it all. So yes, gays can be bad for the economy come to think of it, if their armies beat your ass up. :P

Ancient Greece had rampant homosexuality, and yet they produced geometry, philosophy and democracy.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 07:51:24 PM
Ben, do you maybe mean that it was 1% of the marriages in Canada that were gay, rather than 1% of the gays who were married? The statistics that I'm looking at give us 12,438 same-sex marriages in Canada between June 2003 and October 2006 (with same-sex marriage still not being legal in much of Canada for a lot of this time span), and 147,391 marriages of any kind in 2003, a rate which at that time (the website that I'm looking at for this particular number is from 2007) was said to be more or less stable. So if there are ~140,000-150,000 marriages a year, and 3,731.4 of those were gay on an average between a little over three years during all of which gay marriage wasn't legal throughout Canada...uh, that doesn't gel with what you were saying. My on-the-fly statistics don't even support the 1% of marriages being gay figure. At least in this period (which granted might have seen higher rates than subsequently for obvious reasons) it was more like 2.5%.

Here, links.

Same-sex marriage rate (http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=532)
General marriage rate (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:51:43 PM
Quote
It's pretty hard to argue that you are being oppressed when 99 percent stay exactly the same as before.

The one percent are being oppressed, and gays in general told that they have fewer options than other, demeaning and marginalizing the entire class. In any event, oppressing 1% is 1% too many. Just because a minority is small, does not make it more just to oppress them. In some ways, it makes it worse, because it has the ugly odor of bullying attending it. If the numbers were larger, they could better protect themselves. Instead, they have to rely on our good conscience to secure their rights. In a word, they are vulnerable. The vulnerable need an equal protection of the laws most of all.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 07:52:47 PM
Quote
I've always thought that the general relaxing of divorce laws forty-some years ago was more likely to be responsible for the "broken windows" side of things. So would you support making it harder for couples to get divorced?

Absolutely. I think it's in the interest of society to discourage divorce.
In that case, given that changes in divorce law have been around for a long time, and have demonstrably contributed to the failure of millions of marriages, while same-sex marriage is still illegal and constitutionally prohibited in most states, shouldn't conservatives who care about preserving the traditional family place a higher priority on changing divorce laws, rather than on fighting gay marriage? Aren't conservatives in fact endangering the family themselves, by not pushing back against divorce laws?


It could also be argued that conservatives should have more interest in making sure that any family unit is as strong as possible, with a two-parent household being the desired result. Now tell me, with hetero marriages ending in divorce in unprecedented numbers and with fewer and fewer younger individuals marrying in the first place, shouldn't conservatives want as many two-parent households as possible regardless of sexual orientation, seeing as how the major economic and social issues that relate from the dynamic of the family are caused by the lack of presence of one parent?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oakvale on March 11, 2012, 07:53:43 PM
Ancient Greece had rampant homosexuality, and yet they produced geometry, philosophy and democracy.

Exactly, my friend - rampant homosexuality led to

A) Gay "shapes"
B) A bunch of liberal elites talking

and, as you said,

C) The Democratic Party.

Case rested.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 07:55:43 PM
Ben, do you maybe mean that it was 1% of the marriages in Canada that were gay, rather than 1% of the gays who were married? The statistics that I'm looking at give us 12,438 same-sex marriages in Canada between June 2003 and October 2006 (with same-sex marriage still not being legal in much of Canada for a lot of this time span), and 147,391 marriages of any kind in 2003, a rate which at that time (the website that I'm looking at for this particular number is from 2007) was said to be more or less stable. So if there are ~140,000-150,000 marriages a year, and 3,731.4 of those were gay on an average between a little over three years during all of which gay marriage wasn't legal throughout Canada...uh, that doesn't gel with what you were saying.

Here, links.

Same-sex marriage rate (http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=532)
General marriage rate (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm)

So given all that verbiage, what in Canada is the gay marriage rate among gays of "marrying" age? Again however, it is totally irrelevant from an ethical standpoint whether it is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 100% - totally irrelevant - isn't it?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oakvale on March 11, 2012, 07:56:55 PM
I don't even understand Ben's point here - not many gays marry (according to his dubious assertion) so it shouldn't be legal? ???


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 07:59:43 PM
Ben, do you maybe mean that it was 1% of the marriages in Canada that were gay, rather than 1% of the gays who were married? The statistics that I'm looking at give us 12,438 same-sex marriages in Canada between June 2003 and October 2006 (with same-sex marriage still not being legal in much of Canada for a lot of this time span), and 147,391 marriages of any kind in 2003, a rate which at that time (the website that I'm looking at for this particular number is from 2007) was said to be more or less stable. So if there are ~140,000-150,000 marriages a year, and 3,731.4 of those were gay on an average between a little over three years during all of which gay marriage wasn't legal throughout Canada...uh, that doesn't gel with what you were saying.

Here, links.

Same-sex marriage rate (http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=532)
General marriage rate (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm)

So given all that verbiage, what in Canada is the gay marriage rate among gays of "marrying" age? Again however, it is totally irrelevant from an ethical standpoint whether it is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 100% - totally irrelevant - isn't it?

To be fair to his argument, he's saying the positive effect on 1% of gays is less than the negative effect on society from "de-gendering" marriage.  So he's not saying that 1% of gays have no value, but rather that it's reasonable to ignore them because 99% of gays are disinterested, and there's a net-negative effect on society.

The problem is, his argument about the negative effect on society is ridiculously selective, to the point where he's establishing, ignoring and limiting policy externalities at apparent convenience; and he seems all too willing to throw that 1% (if that's really it) under the bus, as if they were responsible for the disinterest of the 99%.

And he's also starting to go all Milhouse on us with this vague "consummation" stuff.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:00:15 PM
Quote
I'm really going to need a citation on that.

http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/stats/annual/2003/pdf/marriages.pdf

In the first year it was legalized (where you would expect more), you see 600 residents of BC with gay marriage as compared to 40k, or 1.5 percent.

Only 40 percent of gay marriages in BC were by BC residents, 60 percent were from outside the province.

Quote
Who is measuring it?

Vital statistics.

Quote
Also, how does this compare to marriage rates in Canada in general?

Answered and answered.

Quote
Certainly, but I think that other things than gay marriage contribute to that.

Statistics are showing in BC that fewer people overall are choosing to get married.

Quote
For instance, I think that it's to an extent an effect of the social and cultural atomization caused by the concept of the nuclear family itself.

The rate has increased after the laws were changed.

Quote
This sets 'marriage' apart as 'the way to found a family', and undercuts it when people realize that families can be and often are founded in other ways. This is why I don't support nuclear families but extended families, in which even if people do choose to eschew marriage for whatever reason there is an inbuilt system of social support and the same sort of social microcosm that the 'nuclear' family entails, except (in my view) considerably better.

There's no reason why the 'nuclear family' cannot include aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins. This is a straw man.

Quote
Incidentally, if the extended family or at least some parts of it are accepting of a member's homosexuality, that member could, one imagines, get gay-married and be involved in the upbringing of biologically related children with much more ease than in the atomized family structure we've been experimenting with for the past sixty-five-odd years.

Unfortunately, since most gay people do not want this, this is not what we see.

Quote
I agree with this, but I'm not of the opinion that gay people having children is to be discouraged

They can't have children. Not without outside help.

Quote
again, particularly if there's a big lovely cornucopia of extended relatives to go around as potential childrearers and role models of whatever gender one might feel is necessary.

So what you are arguing is that an entire family needs to rearrange itself to suits the needs and desire of one member. Are you trying to reinforce my argument?

Quote
I view gay marriage as a way to salvage something of value from that brokenness.

Unfortunately the experiment is showing precisely the opposite. Fewer people are getting married.

Quote
I also really don't see how extending the marriage franchise in this manner is necessarily of a piece with subsidizing unmarried cohabitation.

That's the behaviour that we are seeing, and I believe the thesis makes sense. If you don't have to have children to get married, and it doesn't even matter if you are a man or a woman, that's not really symbolic of a relationship between a husband and wife, is it? Is someone who's already in a long term relationship going to be all that inclined to take advantage of a relationship that doesn't express how they feel about each other?

Quote
In fact it seems to me rather the opposite. I'd like to see serious campaigns towards getting gay couples to marry in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal

60 percent of all gay marriages in 2003 in BC were from folks outside of BC, this corresponds to 90 percernt of all straight marriages. Clearly there is a campaign. This is what is driving the demand, and why the demand has fallen off drastically from a high of 1 percent.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 08:01:11 PM
Ben, do you maybe mean that it was 1% of the marriages in Canada that were gay, rather than 1% of the gays who were married? The statistics that I'm looking at give us 12,438 same-sex marriages in Canada between June 2003 and October 2006 (with same-sex marriage still not being legal in much of Canada for a lot of this time span), and 147,391 marriages of any kind in 2003, a rate which at that time (the website that I'm looking at for this particular number is from 2007) was said to be more or less stable. So if there are ~140,000-150,000 marriages a year, and 3,731.4 of those were gay on an average between a little over three years during all of which gay marriage wasn't legal throughout Canada...uh, that doesn't gel with what you were saying.

Here, links.

Same-sex marriage rate (http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=532)
General marriage rate (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm)

So given all that verbiage, what in Canada is the gay marriage rate among gays of "marrying" age? Again however, it is totally irrelevant from an ethical standpoint whether it is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 100% - totally irrelevant - isn't it?

It is irrelevant, and also hard to calculate. First, you have to pin down what percentage of the population is "eligible" to engage in a same-sex marriage. If we low-ball it and say 1%, that's roughly 150,000 Canadians. If we take the numbers from 2006-2007, with there being roughly 12,000 gay marriages, then that means that 24,000 gays are married in Canada.

24,000/150,000 = 0.16 = 16% of the homosexual population in Canada is married.

Even if gays made up 5% of the population, that would still place the number of married homosexuals at roughly 3%, as of 2007.

Five years later, it's safe to assume that there are a lot more than 24,000 married gays in Canada.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:01:52 PM
Quote
In that case, given that changes in divorce law have been around for a long time, and have demonstrably contributed to the failure of millions of marriages, while same-sex marriage is still illegal and constitutionally prohibited in most states, shouldn't conservatives who care about preserving the traditional family place a higher priority on changing divorce laws, rather than on fighting gay marriage? Aren't conservatives in fact endangering the family themselves, by not pushing back against divorce laws?

Is divorce an issue more or less likely to be tackled before or after gay marriage is legalized?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 08:03:32 PM
Quote
In that case, given that changes in divorce law have been around for a long time, and have demonstrably contributed to the failure of millions of marriages, while same-sex marriage is still illegal and constitutionally prohibited in most states, shouldn't conservatives who care about preserving the traditional family place a higher priority on changing divorce laws, rather than on fighting gay marriage? Aren't conservatives in fact endangering the family themselves, by not pushing back against divorce laws?

Is divorce an issue more or less likely to be tackled before or after gay marriage is legalized?

If the idea cannot stand alone, then it does not deserve to be considered. You don't get to delay the rights of gays just because you can't get your own house in order.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on March 11, 2012, 08:03:44 PM
Ben, where are you getting the "only 1% of gays in Canada are getting married" numbers? It sounds completly made up and I would like to see a source to that claim.  

Ben, do you maybe mean that it was 1% of the marriages in Canada that were gay, rather than 1% of the gays who were married? The statistics that I'm looking at give us 12,438 same-sex marriages in Canada between June 2003 and October 2006 (with same-sex marriage still not being legal in much of Canada for a lot of this time span), and 147,391 marriages of any kind in 2003, a rate which at that time (the website that I'm looking at for this particular number is from 2007) was said to be more or less stable. So if there are ~140,000-150,000 marriages a year, and 3,731.4 of those were gay on an average between a little over three years during all of which gay marriage wasn't legal throughout Canada...uh, that doesn't gel with what you were saying. My on-the-fly statistics don't even support the 1% of marriages being gay figure. At least in this period (which granted might have seen higher rates than subsequently for obvious reasons) it was more like 2.5%.

Here, links.

Same-sex marriage rate (http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=532)
General marriage rate (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm)

Ah there we go, so as it seemed, Ben didn't quite make his research. 2.5% of all marriages in Canada is quite a lot different. Even if that's a smaller marriage rate than straights it's much much much more than 1% of gays. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt though guessing he just made a mathmatical mistake.



Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:04:11 PM
Quote
And you seem to be conceding that while gay marriage may be a "symptom" of something bad (I am still not sure what), banning it is not the cure. If banning it has no efficacy, then why should we ban it denying a class of persons equal rights in the public square?

Never said it would be the cure or moral decay, but banning it will treat the symptom so you can tackle the other problems. Doing nothing will simply let things get even worse then they are now.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 08:06:59 PM
...Ben, marriage rate in one year is not the same as the percentage of a population that is married.

'Nuclear family' by definition refers to a 'family group consisting of a pair of adults and their children'. Yes, there is a reason why it cannot include other members of the in the family group. It's called the definition of the phrase.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 08:07:32 PM
Ben, do you maybe mean that it was 1% of the marriages in Canada that were gay, rather than 1% of the gays who were married? The statistics that I'm looking at give us 12,438 same-sex marriages in Canada between June 2003 and October 2006 (with same-sex marriage still not being legal in much of Canada for a lot of this time span), and 147,391 marriages of any kind in 2003, a rate which at that time (the website that I'm looking at for this particular number is from 2007) was said to be more or less stable. So if there are ~140,000-150,000 marriages a year, and 3,731.4 of those were gay on an average between a little over three years during all of which gay marriage wasn't legal throughout Canada...uh, that doesn't gel with what you were saying.

Here, links.

Same-sex marriage rate (http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=532)
General marriage rate (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070117/dq070117a-eng.htm)

So given all that verbiage, what in Canada is the gay marriage rate among gays of "marrying" age? Again however, it is totally irrelevant from an ethical standpoint whether it is 1%, 10%, 50%, or 100% - totally irrelevant - isn't it?

It is irrelevant, and also hard to calculate. First, you have to pin down what percentage of the population is "eligible" to engage in a same-sex marriage. If we low-ball it and say 1%, that's roughly 150,000 Canadians. If we take the numbers from 2006-2007, with there being roughly 12,000 gay marriages, then that means that 24,000 gays are married in Canada.

24,000/150,000 = 0.16 = 16% of the homosexual population in Canada is married.

Even if gays made up 5% of the population, that would still place the number of married homosexuals at roughly 3%, as of 2007.

Five years later, it's safe to assume that there are a lot more than 24,000 married gays in Canada.

He is correct that a lot of those marriages were probably non-residents.  He just seems to be a little eager to set low values as zero; and for all of his abstract arguments about the negative externalities on heteros, he doesn't seem to be giving any due to the arguments about why it might take gays a while to come around to the whole marriage thing.  His argument is complicated and has some fair points, but he seems to be going out of his way to ignore some factors and highlight others.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ajb on March 11, 2012, 08:08:17 PM
Quote
In that case, given that changes in divorce law have been around for a long time, and have demonstrably contributed to the failure of millions of marriages, while same-sex marriage is still illegal and constitutionally prohibited in most states, shouldn't conservatives who care about preserving the traditional family place a higher priority on changing divorce laws, rather than on fighting gay marriage? Aren't conservatives in fact endangering the family themselves, by not pushing back against divorce laws?

Is divorce an issue more or less likely to be tackled before or after gay marriage is legalized?
Well, same-sex marriage has only been an active issue since the very late 1990's, and divorce rates haven't actually gone up since then, the big shift having happened in the 1970's or so. And yet conservative Republicans in office at the state and federal level during that time seem to have done awfully little about it.
If you're saying that gay marriage is a higher priority now, then why wasn't divorce a higher priority for conservatives then? Dare I suggest that it's because lots of conservatives are divorced?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Free Palestine on March 11, 2012, 08:11:21 PM
Countries that have legalized same-sex marriage:

Canada
Argentina
Spain
Portugal
South Africa
Belgium
The Netherlands
Norway
Sweden
Iceland

Countries that have encountered significant economic/social problems/whatever as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage:

...

DURR

Seriously, this may seem hackish, but I have no problem saying that there is no legitimate argument against same-sex marriage.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 08:14:51 PM
He is correct that a lot of those marriages were probably non-residents.  He just seems to be a little eager to set low values as zero; and for all of his abstract arguments about the negative externalities on heteros, he doesn't seem to be giving any due to the arguments about why it might take gays a while to come around to the whole marriage thing.  His argument is complicated and has some fair points, but he seems to be going out of his way to ignore some factors and highlight others.

Valid points all. There are definite flaws in how low the projections were made by Ben. Even at a projection of 1% of the Canadian population being gay and with 80% of all marriages being from out-of-country, it still amounts of 2.5-3% of native Canadian gays being married.

There's also huge validity in the long-term trends that will have to take place for gay marriage rates to be on par with hetero marriage. People don't change their behaviors, stigmas or actions overnight.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:15:07 PM
Quote
Obviously no, because I'm not dumb.

Ok, then are you arguing that your sex is in fact relevant?

Quote
I believe that gay marriage argues that the sex you happen to be is irrelevant to the ends of the policy position.  That does not mean it's irrelevant to things that are pertinent to marriage or marriage policy, like procreative ability.

You can't have both of these. One or the other. Either things like procreation are relevant or they are not.

Quote
The fact that two situations are treated as the same in the broad policy does not mean they are the same, or that their equal treatment implies that the considerations are the same.

If you are arguing that they are both the same and should be treated the same, then you are saying that procreation is irrelevant to marriage.

Quote
You'll have to tell me more about my understanding of the marital union as consummation.

Then you don't see consummation as having any relevance to marriage?

Quote
One that's 0.0001% better, in net, than the previous policy.

Uh, yeah. Sorry. If a policy that's supposed to bring freedom to people is outright rejected, then that pretty much says it all? Maybe the policy stinks and/or doesn't meet the needs of gay people.

Quote
Your basic argument, although it's kind of confusing, seems to be that the dilution of the meaning of "marriage" so as to render sex irrelevant, has the potential to discourage people from entering marital relationships.  You argue that this "breaks" marriage,

Yep, you've got it, it breaks things that have generally always been associated with marriage.

Quote
1. You're treating marginal effects as non-effects (selectively.)

I'm stating that the effect of 10 percent of the population doing something that hurts things overall outweighs 1 percent of the population doing something that may be helpful.

Quote
2. You're dismissing positive externalities in the case of incentivizing gay monogamy, and I'm not sure why.

All I'm seeing are negative externalities associated with the policy. If you've got positive externalities, then I'd like to see them.  

Quote
3. You're assuming that early marriage rates encapsulate all direct positives and positive externalities of gay marriage, and I'm not sure why.

Because it's an empirical effect? You've asked for something that can be measured. This is one thing that can.

Quote
4. You are assuming that including gays will structurally effect the institution of marriage, by the simple change of definition, as opposed to be limited to being a negative externality.  Basically, you're treating gay relationships as having externalities limited by their numbers when it's inconvenient to your argument, and having structural externalities to the whole institution when it's convenient to your argument.

I'm stating that the evidence that we possess at present shows an insignificant increase in one type of marriage and a significant decrease in another type of marriage. Ergo, the policy is an outright failure at producing the desired result, increasing the marriage rate in Canada. In fact, it's been quite the opposite.

Fewer people getting married is going to have a negative effect further on down the road. Smaller families, more breakups, more children out of wedlock, and an overall drag on the economy.

Quote
5. You seem to be ignoring the parallel argument that incentivizing institutional monogamy would have a structural effect in encouraging long-term monogamy among all populations.

It would be, except this theory isn't working out this way. If gay marriage increased overall monogamy, we would not be seeing the things we do see. We're seeing precisely the opposite.

Quote
And, yet, you're dismissing marginal effects as being non-effects.  That seems whack to me.

Not sure where I've dismissed them altogether? I've argued they are substantially outweighed by the negative effects.

Quote
What does that have to do with childless or child-adopting heterosexual relationships (like the portion you quoted), and how does this all relate to the "consummation norm" or whatever?

What percentage of children overall are raised in these circumstances? By far the greatest correlation is the overall marriage rates.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:20:05 PM
One of me, lots of you. :p

Quote
At least in this period (which granted might have seen higher rates than subsequently for obvious reasons) it was more like 2.5%.

The problem is that 60+ percent of gay marriages are not to Canadians, whereas 90+ of straight marriages are.

So you really can take only the 40 percent or so of marriages that actually involve Canadians.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:21:43 PM
Quote
Five years later, it's safe to assume that there are a lot more than 24,000 married gays in Canada

Again, you have to take into account the fact that most do not actually involve Canadians.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:22:59 PM
Quote
If the idea cannot stand alone, then it does not deserve to be considered. You don't get to delay the rights of gays just because you can't get your own house in order.

If I'm in Georgia, I don't go to NYC by way of Florida Keys.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 11, 2012, 08:25:26 PM
Well, there goes about 20 million independents, swing voters, and crossover Democrats.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:25:51 PM
Twilight:

Quote
Countries that have encountered drops in the overall marriage rate after introducing gay marriage

Do you want me to check that out? I'm pretty sure the answer is a 1:1 correlation...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
Quote
Well, there goes about 20 million independents, swing voters, and crossover Democrats.

I'm not sure why people who support gay marriage to be the reason for their vote are voting for Santorum. 


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 08:27:20 PM
Quote
And you seem to be conceding that while gay marriage may be a "symptom" of something bad (I am still not sure what), banning it is not the cure. If banning it has no efficacy, then why should we ban it denying a class of persons equal rights in the public square?

Never said it would be the cure or moral decay, but banning it will treat the symptom so you can tackle the other problems. Doing nothing will simply let things get even worse then they are now.

We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?  We are so distracted by gay marriage, that we just can't focus on what to do about dysfunctional hetero relationships apparently.  And if only we ban gay marriage/unions, and cease chatting about it, then we can focus. We seem to be in a rather puerile state then it seems, attending by ADD.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:28:38 PM
Quote
We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?  We are so distracted by gay marriage, that we just can't focus on what to do about dysfunctional hetero relationships apparently.  And if only we ban gay marriage/unions, and cease chatting about it, then we can focus. We seem to be in a rather puerile state then it seems, attending by ADD.

As I said, you don't get from GA to NYC by way of Florida Keys.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 08:29:33 PM
Quote from: Ben Kenobi
Again, you have to take into account the fact that most do not actually involve Canadians.

Perhaps initially; it appeared to be 60%. That was in 2003. There are now plenty of states that offer the same services closer to home, leading to a ultimate downtick in the number of Americans (who are the primary border-hopping gay marriers) crossing into Canada to get married.

Quote
If the idea cannot stand alone, then it does not deserve to be considered. You don't get to delay the rights of gays just because you can't get your own house in order.

If I'm in Georgia, I don't go to NYC by way of Florida Keys.

Flawed analogy. We are two separate people with two separate cars; you drive where you want and I'll do the same and whoever gets there first wins the race.

Here are some interesting numbers from the 2000 US Census outlining gay households and parenting:

  • Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties.
  • Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties.
  • Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children.
  • Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children).
  • Vermont has the largest aggregation of same gender-couples (∼1% of all households) followed by California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon.
  • Regionally, the South has the highest percentage of same-gender couples who are parents; 36.1% of lesbian couples and 23.9% of gay couples in the South are raising children.
  • The second highest percentage is seen in the Midwest, where 34.7% of lesbian couples and 22.9% of gay couples are parenting children.
  • In the West, 33.1% of lesbian couples and 21.1% of gay couples are parents.
  • In the Northeast, 32.6% of lesbian couples and 21.7% of gay couples are raising children.
  • The states with the highest percentages of lesbian couples raising children are Mississippi (43.8%), South Dakota and Utah (42.3% each), and Texas (40.9%).
  • The states with the highest percentages of gay male couples raising children are Alaska (36%), South Dakota (33%), Mississippi (31%), and Idaho and Utah (30% each).
  • Six percent of same-gender couples are raising children who have been adopted compared with 5.1% of heterosexual married couples and 2.6% of unmarried heterosexual couples.†
  • Eight percent of same-gender parents are raising children with special health care needs, compared with 8.3% of heterosexual unmarried parents and 5.8% of heterosexual married parents.
  • Of same-gender partners raising children, 41.1% have been together for 5 years or longer, whereas 19.9% of heterosexual unmarried couples have stayed together for that duration.

Source: Here (http://"http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/349.full)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 08:32:14 PM
Quote
We can't walk and chew gum at the same time?  We are so distracted by gay marriage, that we just can't focus on what to do about dysfunctional hetero relationships apparently.  And if only we ban gay marriage/unions, and cease chatting about it, then we can focus. We seem to be in a rather puerile state then it seems, attending by ADD.

As I said, you don't get from GA to NYC by way of Florida Keys.

Is that just restating your prior assertion gussied up with a geographic metaphor, or am I missing something?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 11, 2012, 08:35:24 PM
<3 not being involved in these troll/flame war threads. So glad that it was established on the first page that Santorum didn't actually say this.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:37:05 PM
Quote
Perhaps initially; it appeared to be 60%. That was in 2003.

http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/stats/annual/2007/pdf/marriages.pdf

2007 shows that the numbers haven't changed substantially.

I'm not cherry picking, just picked 2007 at random.

Quote
Flawed analogy. We are two separate people with two separate cars; you drive where you want and I'll do the same and whoever gets there first wins the race.

But if I have a goal in mind, I do not get to that goal by working towards the opposite. That is the point I'm trying to drive home. I don't reduce the divorce rate by approving Gay marriage, and if you seriously believe that divorce is more likely to be changed after gay marriage, than before, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

Quote
Here are some interesting numbers from the 2000 US Census outlining gay households and parenting.

Add two zeros and you see my point, hopefully.



Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 08:37:47 PM
Ok, then are you arguing that your sex is in fact relevant?

You can't have both of these. One or the other. Either things like procreation are relevant or they are not.

If you are arguing that they are both the same and should be treated the same, then you are saying that procreation is irrelevant to marriage.

Semantics only work if you know what you're talking about.

You can have two situations with different policy implications and considerations, and the same end policy in the same way 2+3=5 while 1+4=5, and the same way 1+2 and 1+1 can both =>1.  Either you're missing me that or you were defining "relevant" as "prompting a distinction between policies," which is an incoherent definition for "relevant."  After all, something can cause you to have the same two policies for two different situations, when you otherwise would not have; does the fact that it renders identical policies make it "irrelevant"?  Obviously not...in fact, it makes it relevant.

(That may not be the case here; I'm just pointing out that your argument is illogical.)

Then you don't see consummation as having any relevance to marriage?

Considering how confused I find your definition of "relevance," maybe you should just say your argument re: consummation to avoid a potential misunderstanding there.

Uh, yeah. Sorry. If a policy that's supposed to bring freedom to people is outright rejected, then that pretty much says it all? Maybe the policy stinks and/or doesn't meet the needs of gay people.

So, all else being equal, we should revert to a policy that provides even less utility?  Uh, no, sorry.

All I'm seeing are negative externalities associated with the policy. If you've got positive externalities, then I'd like to see them.

Because it's an empirical effect? You've asked for something that can be measured. This is one thing that can.

The measurements you've made are secondary correlations.  Your central claim is not empirically measurable.  You've observed a phenomenon (failure for marriage rates to rise), and hypothesized that it's on account of a "broken window" caused by homosexual relationships, or at least that homosexual relationships have failed to reverse the trend and are therefore ineffective policy.  Is that about right?

I also mentioned an (equally unfalsifiable) argument for a positive externality.  Is your sole justification for rejecting that, that marriage rates have not gone back up?

I'm stating that the evidence that we possess at present shows an insignificant increase in one type of marriage and a significant decrease in another type of marriage. Ergo, the policy is an outright failure at producing the desired result, increasing the marriage rate in Canada. In fact, it's been quite the opposite.

...

It would be, except this theory isn't working out this way. If gay marriage increased overall monogamy, we would not be seeing the things we do see. We're seeing precisely the opposite.

Have you controlled these numbers for (non-)presence of same-sex marriage?

Not sure where I've dismissed them altogether? I've argued they are substantially outweighed by the negative effects.

That's not how it came across, but fair enough.

What percentage of children overall are raised in these circumstances? By far the greatest correlation is the overall marriage rates.

What do you mean "the greatest correlation"?  To what?  With what?  Greatest in what sense?

Also, did you just ask what percentage of children are raised in childless marriages?

I'm starting to wonder if you're even trying to do anything but reply as quickly as possible...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 08:38:50 PM
<3 not being involved in these troll/flame war threads. So glad that it was established on the first page that Santorum didn't actually say this.

Yes, absolutely. He didn't say that at all, or did he?

"this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken...."

Texts are stubborn things, because you can just copy and paste them!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 11, 2012, 08:40:07 PM
Yes, a "society that is broken," Torie. He didn't say, "The economy tanked because of gay marriage."

Find something else to foam-at-the-mouth over.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 08:44:15 PM
Yes, a "society that is broken," Torie. He didn't say, "The economy tanked because of gay marriage."

Find something else to foam-at-the-mouth over.

He moved right on next to how that hurts our economy (and yes, if it "broke" our society, trashing the functionality of families with kids, it indeed would hurt our economy, if). I could copy and paste that again too, but enough is enough. Have a good evening, Phil.

Oh, and thank you for bring this thread back on topic to focus on Rick. The way this was going, the thread would be headed to the US Discussion Thread, rather than here. You did a good deed there. Kudos.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 11, 2012, 08:46:22 PM
"I'll get my arguments in, take a shot or two at you then act like I'm the bigger person and 'walk away.'"

Yeah, good night, Torie.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:50:35 PM
Quote
Semantics only work if you know what you're talking about.

Hey, I'm willing to argue facts with facts, principles with principles.

If you believe that gay marriage is ok, then I fail to see how you can say that procreation has a connection to marriage. That seems incoherent to me. The argument that procreation is irrelevant to marriage makes sense- because that position is consistant.

Quote
Considering how confused I find your definition of "relevance," maybe you should just say your argument re: consummation to avoid a potential misunderstanding there.

Gosh. How about you first.

Quote
So, all else being equal, we should revert to a policy that provides even less utility?  Uh, no, sorry.

As a utilitarian, isn't this where Mr. Spock steps in and says that the needs of the many...

Quote
The measurements you've made are secondary correlations.  Your central claim is not empirically measurable.  You've observed a phenomenon (failure for marriage rates to rise)

No, I've observed a decline in marriage rates, consistant with the broken window thesis. The thesis matches the observations, and attempts to explain why.

You're articulating a thesis that does not actually matched the expected observations. Which leads me to wonder, do you believe that this will change in the future?

Quote
I also mentioned an (equally unfalsifiable) argument for a positive externality.  Is your sole justification for rejecting that, that marriage rates have not gone back up?

It was predicted that there would be no effect. That has been shown to be false. The folks that predicted (prior to the change of the law), that marriage rates would decline, has been shown to be correct.

What happens to theories that make wrong predictions? It leads credence to the folks who predicted that marriage rates would decline that they were able to correctly predict what was to come.

Even if they are right for the wrong reasons. See what I'm saying?

Quote
Have you controlled these numbers for (non-)presence of same-sex marriage?

That would take time. I can do it but it would take a bit.  

Quote
What do you mean "the greatest correlation"?  To what?  With what?  Greatest in what sense?

Marriage rates have the biggest effect on the total children born out of wedlock. Even if it goes up with a small segment of the population, an overall decline will have a much greater effect on this number. More children born out of wedlock on average means greater poverty.

Quote
I'm starting to wonder if you're even trying to do anything but reply as quickly as possible...

One of me, about 10 of you folks... Bear with me.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Keystone Phil on March 11, 2012, 08:52:26 PM
Oh, and thank you for bring this thread back on topic to focus on Rick. The way this was going, the thread would be headed to the US Discussion Thread, rather than here. You did a good deed there. Kudos.

There's that sarcastic jab! But let's all talk about how nice and respectful Torie is!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 08:53:05 PM
Yay! I caught up. :D


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: Ben Kenobi
2007 shows that the numbers haven't changed substantially.

I'm not cherry picking, just picked 2007 at random.

You picked it because it's the most recent data-set that can be looked at definitively. I understand that.

Quote from: Ben Kenobi
But if I have a goal in mind, I do not get to that goal by working towards the opposite. That is the point I'm trying to drive home. I don't reduce the divorce rate by approving Gay marriage, and if you seriously believe that divorce is more likely to be changed after gay marriage, than before, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

The problem with your argument is that the concept of marriage has degraded itself within the realm of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have freely chosen to redefine it in their own terms as something that doesn't mean much more than a contract that can be revoked or cancelled at any time. There's also implications within the younger generations because society is slowly viewing it as anachronistic in the terms that you support. Why is that? Because people like you are fighting against the times, and if the institution cannot modernize, then it will be forgotten like any and every other thing in the entire history of mankind that went the same route. People still want to show their love in a form like marriage and want to receive the legal and secular benefits that come with it, but the religious right has ruined the "sanctity" of marriage in itself by ignoring the core principle of what it is about and by taking their lead from the Talmud.

Quote from: Ben Kenobi
Add two zeros and you see my point, hopefully.

Not exactly. What? That 3000% of heterosexual couples are raising children? It's evidently clear that unmarried homosexual couples are raising children in two-parent households at double the rate of unmarried heterosexual couples, so perhaps you should re-frame this bigoted argument by advocating that homosexual couples are more stable (especially considering current circumstances of discrimination and denial of basic rights) and therefore need the institution of marriage less than heterosexual couples.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 08:56:32 PM
I kind of admire your lonely fight Ben. And you are handling it graciously, and with sang-froid, and I admire that even more. That matters more to me than that you have your head up your ass on this one, in my of course quite arrogant opinion. :)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 11, 2012, 09:01:35 PM
Oh, and thank you for bring this thread back on topic to focus on Rick. The way this was going, the thread would be headed to the US Discussion Thread, rather than here. You did a good deed there. Kudos.

There's that sarcastic jab! But let's all talk about how nice and respectful Torie is!

No, it was meant as a genuine complement actually, hard as that may be for you to believe.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 09:05:02 PM
Quote
The problem with your argument is that the concept of marriage has degraded itself within the realm of heterosexuals.

I'm pretty sure that's one of my premisses...

Quote
Heterosexuals have freely chosen to redefine it in their own terms as something that doesn't mean much more than a contract that can be revoked or cancelled at any time.

No argument here.

Quote
There's also implications within the younger generations because society is slowly viewing it as anachronistic in the terms that you support. Why is that?

I would argue they see it as anachronistic because it no longer has any relevance to their lives. If you've grown up in a broken family, without really any positive role models in marriage, then yes, it's going to lose most of it's relevancy to you. Then the cycle repeats. This is why that statistic with children born out of wedlock has continued to increase every year.

Quote
Because people like you are fighting against the times

True, but take a look around you. Does it do much good to win the battle but lose the war? You are fighting a battle that you perceive as good and noble, while at the same time, the rest of us are taking some hard looks at the big picture.

I'm fighting against the times, because I know that the times are not moving in a productive, but rather a destructive fashion. Some people see this, some do not.

Quote
and if the institution cannot modernize, then it will be forgotten like any and every other thing in the entire history of mankind that went the same route

I don't believe you will like to live in such a society. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but a society without marriage isn't going to be a particularly nice one.

Quote
People still want to show their love in a form like marriage and want to receive the legal and secular benefits that come with it, but the religious right has ruined the "sanctity" of marriage in itself by ignoring the core principle of what it is about and by taking their lead from the Talmud.

Most of us could care little about what the state chooses to do but it means withdrawing from the state and leaving to your own or fighting the state as best we can.

For now, we've chosen to fight for a society that seems to hate itself and what it stood for more than anything, which rather perplexes me, that the only thing that seems to stick up for it is a Church that wasn't built in America, was considered an enemy of America all it's existence. I supposed that's Irony for you.

Quote
Not exactly. What? That 3000% of heterosexual couples are raising children?

Are you more concerned with upholding the 1 percent that is working or the 40 percent that isn't?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 09:08:11 PM
No, I've observed a decline in marriage rates, consistant with the broken window thesis. The thesis matches the observations, and attempts to explain why.

You're articulating a thesis that does not actually matched the expected observations. Which leads me to wonder, do you believe that this will change in the future?

It was predicted that there would be no effect. That has been shown to be false. The folks that predicted (prior to the change of the law), that marriage rates would decline, has been shown to be correct.

What happens to theories that make wrong predictions? It leads credence to the folks who predicted that marriage rates would decline that they were able to correctly predict what was to come.

Even if they are right for the wrong reasons. See what I'm saying?

So, you're essentially arguing that -- even if gay marriage does not affect the marriage rates, or even slows down losses -- because we cannot separate out correlation and causation, we should presume it has a negative effect on causation if a negative correlation exists?  I just want to clarify your argument before we continue.

Also, my hypothesis does not fail to match empirical evidence because my hypothesis does not necessarily claim that the effect of gay marriage will be enough to reverse larger trends.  You cannot ascribe an empirical claim to an argument simply because that empirical claim could be made about an argument.  I can present a version of the pro-gay marriage hypothesis that is equally as unfalsifiable and matches the evidence as approximately well as the argument you're presenting.  Does that make it compelling?  Absolutely not.  So why do you believe yours with such apparent certainty?

I think the claims made about gay marriage (also unfalsifiable, granted) was that gay marriage would not have a negative effect on marriage rates, not that marriage rates would not continue falling.  (So, more akin to the contrasting hypothesis I'm describing.)

Marriage rates have the biggest effect on the total children born out of wedlock. Even if it goes up with a small segment of the population, an overall decline will have a much greater effect on this number. More children born out of wedlock on average means greater poverty.

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question.

One of me, about 10 of you folks... Bear with me.

Sorry to be impatient.  It's always easier to see communication issues as being the other person's fault.  I appreciate your efforts.

(Edit: Also, for some reason, my subconscious was originally convinced that you were a particular returned banned poster who I had a strong distaste for.  You're obviously not, but my subconscious is still getting purged of the association...it's probably affecting my ability to be nice to you still, a little.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 09:13:47 PM
Quote
I kind of admire your lonely fight Ben. And you are handling it graciously, and with sang-froid, and I admire that even more. That matters more to me than that you have your head up your ass on this one, in my of course quite arrogant opinion

Well I'm honored that this site has reasoned discourse. Difficult to find and on both sides of the aisle these days.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 09:19:53 PM
I'm glad to see you recognize that the heterosexual community is to blame for the heterosexual community's downfall in regards to marriage and the family unit. However, the remedy of penalizing a separate group of people for those issues does not make any sense in the realm of society. It's not going to fix the problems in the heterosexual community. Gays do not cause families to fall apart, nor does their existence prevent the family unit from being revived as you desire. Gays are not "contagious" nor can their form of love permeate outside their own domain. This goes back to the two-path NY/FL analogy you were using earlier. It does not have to be one or the other in reality, but by and large it looks as if that will be how it unfolds. Many traditional marriage proponents directly link the success of their marriages and families to the ability for gays to marry or not, and if they continue to look for their salvation in the form of hating and discriminating against others, they will ultimately fail.

It's a much smarter idea for the proponents of traditional marriage to stop worrying about the gays and look inward, to figure out what is the issue within the heterosexual community at-large. Gays don't make men leave their wives and children. The fault lies exclusively within the heterosexual community and it is solely the heterosexual community's responsibility to fix that.

Why do you think gays fight for marriage equality? It's to better the community and make stronger bonds within their own family units. Not immediately, but over the long-term. When you live in a society where your existence - let along the ability to get married - is frowned upon, you tend to find no reason or hope to start a family, get "married" or any of that. Gays are fighting for the same thing you are fighting for on your end, and as much as you may not believe it, they are separate issues with hopefully, a similar outcome of a society with stronger (and more) families.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 09:21:42 PM
Quote
So, you're essentially arguing that -- even if gay marriage does not affect the marriage rates, or even slows down losses -- because we cannot separate out correlation and causation, we should presume it has a negative effect on causation if a negative correlation exists?  I just want to clarify your argument before we continue.

I'm saying that we can dispose of the argument that gay marriage would increase marriage rates overall. I agree with you that I don't think the argument has been sufficiently proven (wrt to other effects on society) to explain the marriage decline, if for anything else, that it's simply not been around long enough.

However, there's a big gap between, 'insufficiently proven' and between 'proven to be incorrect'. I think the evidence that we do have is supportive of the broken window hypothesis.

Quote
I can present a version of the pro-gay marriage hypothesis that is equally as unfalsifiable

Marriage rates increasing (irrespective of the cause) would falsify the theory outright. Ergo the thesis is falsifiable.

Quote
So why do you believe yours with such apparent certainty?

Because people smarter than me with many more letters after their name are coming to the same conclusions.

Quote
I agree, but that doesn't answer my question.

Then I've apparently lost the course. Please restate your question again. My apologies.

Quote
(Edit: Also, for some reason, my subconscious was originally convinced that you were a particular returned banned poster who I had a strong distaste for.  You're obviously not, but my subconscious is still getting purged of the association...it's probably affecting my ability to be fair to you still, a little

Teddy? He's a friend for sure, and encouraged me to sign up. But I'm here mostly because I got zotted at FR for preaching the merits of Santorum.

Here I can be a Santorum fanboy and not be accused of working for him, thankfully.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 09:31:20 PM
And I didn't mean to ignore your points, as some are very fair and valid (with regards to the unraveling of the family structure and some of the instances that propagate it). I just tend to disagree that in order for you to achieve your goals, you must jeopardize the goals of others.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 09:36:36 PM
I'm just going to put this out there again:

A marriage rate in a population over the course of one year is NOT the same as overall proportion of that population which is married. That's like claiming that just because a country's death rate in a given year is, say, 3%, only 3% of that country's population throughout history has ever died.

Also, Ben, I do understand and appreciate your firmness and consistency on this matter, and I share your concerns about the fraying of the family, but when you get down to it no system can keep asserting itself and avoiding dealing with its structural problems by bearing down on the backs of people who it wants to exclude from its vaunted hallows, not least because that doesn't work. Whether or not gay marriage has done anything to fix any perceived problems with straight marriage, resisting gay marriage has accomplished nothing of use for anyone.

Also, I'm going to double down on the necessity of sending the atomized, discrete, two-generation 'nuclear family' right into the abyss. It's a cauldron for all sorts of perverse incentives and prurient obsessions.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 11, 2012, 09:37:18 PM
I've come to the conclusion there is no point of reading anti-gay marriage arguments. They never make any sense. I'm simply going to remain steadfast in my support.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 09:38:36 PM
Quote
I'm glad to see you recognize that the heterosexual community is to blame for the heterosexual community's downfall in regards to marriage and the family unit.

I never said that. I said that everyone is responsible for themselves, and that those who have been married and done a poor job of that are responsible for the damage that they have done to their own families.  That doesn't absolve the victims who have suffered from this from the further decisions that they make on top of this.

Quote
However, the remedy of penalizing a separate group of people for those issues

You would be right, but society choosing to restrain people from harming themselves cannot be construed as punishment. You're assuming here that this is beneficial to those involved.

Quote
It's not going to fix the problems in the heterosexual community.

Quite the opposite, it's going to exacerbate them.

Quote
Gays do not cause families to fall apart, nor does their existence prevent the family unit from being revived as you desire.

Which is why gay people are insisting that family pictures being taken down, protesting rallies in support of traditional marriage, etc, etc, etc.

I cannot seek employment in my chosen field due to my religious and spiritual beliefs. Your comments here demonstrate that you are simply unaware of what is going on. No, it's not about simple tolerance, it's about the desire to undo society and remake it how you would prefer it to be. Even if that means destroying other people's lives, and the lives of those who have been on the other side.

Quote
Gays are not "contagious" nor can their form of love permeate outside their own domain.

Then why are they attacking those who say that they are sinning? If it's not about converting those who oppose them, why not simply leave them be?

Quote
This goes back to the two-path NY/FL analogy you were using earlier. It does not have to be one or the other in reality, but by and large it looks as if that will be how it unfolds.

Again, I have a goal, and that direction isn't helped by these actions.

Quote
Many traditional marriage proponents directly link the success of their marriages and families to the ability for gays to marry or not, and if they continue to look for their salvation in the form of hating and discriminating against others, they will ultimately fail.

So you sincerely believe that we are saved if we meet our gay-hating quota?

Are you willing to make the statement that I, do, in fact, hate gay people?

Quote
It's a much smarter idea for the proponents of traditional marriage to stop worrying about the gays and look inward, to figure out what is the issue within the heterosexual community at-large.

Which is why political compass has this question:

"When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things."

I strongly suspect your answer to this question is the same as mine.

Quote
Gays don't make men leave their wives and children. The fault lies exclusively within the heterosexual community and it is solely the heterosexual community's responsibility to fix that.

Ideas have consequences. Dissassociating marriage from having kids has negative consequences for society as a whole.

Quote
Why do you think gays fight for marriage equality?

Why?

For the same reason that a child who has no toy wants the toy of someone else. They want to be included and they feel that they are excluded by society which has certain rules. They want to participate in what they see as a fundamental part of society.

They believe that if they can force other people to treat them the same as everyone else, that they will achieve the goal that they seek.

Now, if I've misunderstood as a 'hater', please correct me, but I do not believe that I am incorrect in my understanding.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 09:39:54 PM
I'm saying that we can dispose of the argument that gay marriage would increase marriage rates overall. I agree with you that I don't think the argument has been sufficiently proven (wrt to other effects on society) to explain the marriage decline, if for anything else, that it's simply not been around long enough.

I don't think many proponents of gay marriage have made the argument that gay marriage itself would be enough to reverse trends that, all else being equal, originate from 90% of the overall marriageable population.

I don't understand the second sentence, sorry.

However, there's a big gap between, 'insufficiently proven' and between 'proven to be incorrect'. I think the evidence that we do have is supportive of the broken window hypothesis.

You really think the continued (although slightly slowed, overall, I think?) decline in heterosexual marriage rates is enough to prove this grand "broken window" hypothesis about gay marriage itself?  I'm putting aside the debate over whether gay marriage is alone enough to reverse long-standing trends in marriage, because I think that is a pretty fringe argument.  Are you really convinced that gay marriage is breaking the window further, considering the nature of the evidence at hand?

I'd have to think on how to respond to this in detail, but that hard-set belief seems incredibly counterintuitive to me.

Marriage rates increasing (irrespective of the cause) would falsify the theory outright. Ergo the thesis is falsifiable.

Again, I don't think that's the thesis gay marriage proponents are arguing; nor do I think gay marriage opponents would accept that gay marriage is repairing windows if this trend reversed itself.  I think this fight is about effect on the margins, which is understandable considering it pertains to a rather small number of marriages.

Because people smarter than me with many more letters after their name are coming to the same conclusions.

Obviously most accredited folks who write on gay marriage support it, so I assume you've analyzed the arguments here enough to discern which accredited folks to give more due to.  Unless I am missing a body of evidence or theory after giving this thought and research, I think we're approaching the point at which the "certainty gap" between us and them, is no longer about their superior information.  (Academics and other experts obviously have non-evidentiary incentives to claim certainty, or publish disproportionately in areas where they believe they are certain.)

Based on the stuff we've talked about in this thread, do you really think this is a slam-dunk evidentary case for a positive aggregate or negative aggregate effect from gay marriage?  I'm unambivalent about gay marriage for other reasons, but I don't think it is.  This is just very hard to observe empirically.

I mean:  If there is no correlation between presence of gay marriage and accelerating divorce rates, doesn't that rather outshadow the evidence you've presented so far?

Then I've apparently lost the course. Please restate your question again. My apologies.

No worries.  It doesn't really fit the conversation, but I'll bring it back if it's relevant again.

Teddy? He's a friend for sure, and encouraged me to sign up. But I'm here mostly because I got zotted at FR for preaching the merits of Santorum.

Here I can be a Santorum fanboy and not be accused of working for him, thankfully.

Alexander Hamilton, actually, and I have no idea why.  I guess you share a similar Political Matrix score and both oppose gay marriage.  Hamilton's reasons for opposing gay marriage were psychopathy masked in high-level arguments like this...that's why I was too willing to assume you were dismissing marginal benefits to gays as a non-benefit.  Sorry again.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 09:41:16 PM
Quote
Gays are not "contagious" nor can their form of love permeate outside their own domain.

Then why are they attacking those who say that they are sinning? If it's not about converting those who oppose them, why not simply leave them be?


I'll field this one.

Because the preponderance of such opposition is prejudicing them in the conduct of their lives.

And what exactly is this field in which you can't seek employment due to your religion?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 11, 2012, 09:47:01 PM
I do not support gay marriage, however, I do believe that these kinds of comments from Santorum do not help the Republican cause in November.

We will need independents, moderates, and cross over Democrats in order to win, and these kinds of comments, for the most part, scare these voters away.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 09:48:55 PM
I do not support gay marriage, however, I do believe that these kinds of comments from Santorum do not help the Republican cause in November.

I'd appreciate if you read something in this topic besides the title or abstained from posting.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 09:49:19 PM
Quote
Also, I'm going to double down on the necessity of sending the atomized, discrete, two-generation 'nuclear family' right into the abyss. It's a cauldron for all sorts of perverse incentives and prurient obsessions.

Then don't be surprised if your policy fails to reap the expected gains.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 11, 2012, 09:50:31 PM
Then don't be surprised if your policy fails to reap the expected gains.

I promise not to if you won't be surprised if your policy fails to reap them either.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Lincoln Republican on March 11, 2012, 10:00:15 PM
I do not support gay marriage, however, I do believe that these kinds of comments from Santorum do not help the Republican cause in November.

I'd appreciate if you read something in this topic besides the title or abstained from posting.

I am as much entitled to my views as is anybody else.

Long live the cause of freedom of speech!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 10:06:15 PM
Quote
I don't think many proponents of gay marriage have made the argument that gay marriage itself would be enough to reverse trends that, all else being equal, originate from 90% of the overall marriageable population.

I've seen the arguments since about 2000 or so, that people were consciously avoiding getting married out of solidarity with their gay brethren. Ergo, preventing gay marriage was a hindrance to marriage overall. Clearly it's been proven not to be the case.

Quote
I don't understand the second sentence, sorry.

There's a difference between something that is statistically significant and something that is not. I don't believe sufficient time has passed to confirm the theory as true even if the evidence at present, on the surface, supports it.

Quote
You really think the continued (although slightly slowed, overall, I think?) decline in heterosexual marriage rates is enough to prove this grand "broken window" hypothesis about gay marriage itself?

It's been persistant for awhile now, and there has been some handwringing about it.

Quote
Are you really convinced that gay marriage is breaking the window further, considering the nature of the evidence at hand?

If I were to compare birthrates between the folks who do believe in gay marriage and between those who don't, it's really stark. I know folks on both sides, and it's not even close. I think one of my conservative Catholic friends has more kids than all the folks on the other side combined.

So yeah, I do believe it's having a negative effect.

Quote
Again, I don't think that's the thesis gay marriage proponents are arguing; nor do I think gay marriage opponents would accept that gay marriage is repairing windows if this trend reversed itself.

Well, I would consider that as an argument in favor of the thesis. :) Make a prediction, get proven right - that makes me sit up and take notice.

Quote
I think this fight is about effect on the margins, which is understandable considering it pertains to a rather small number of marriages.

Personally, as a historian I think we are missing the forest for the trees, but then I'm weird, so that doesn't surprise me.

Quote
Obviously most accredited folks who write on gay marriage support it, so I assume you've analyzed the arguments here enough to discern which accredited folks to give more due to.

I've been on your side, and not that long ago. It's a reasonable argument, if all the premises follow. However, I think that at least two of your premises are sufficiently flawed to render the rest of the argument moot.

I don't think we've even touched on either premise yet.

Quote
(Academics and other experts obviously have non-evidentiary incentives to claim certainty, or publish disproportionately in areas where they believe they are certain.)

My opinion, having read the literature, is that I am reading the holy scriptures of a religion that brooks no dissent. And then I read Kreeft.

Quote
Based on the stuff we've talked about in this thread, do you really think this is a slam-dunk evidentary case for a positive aggregate or negative aggregate effect from gay marriage?

Would a conservative frame this question in this matter?  A conservative frames innovations as having to show that they bring substantial benefit to society as a whole.

Quote
I mean:  If there is no correlation between presence of gay marriage and accelerating divorce rates, doesn't that rather outshadow the evidence you've presented so far?

It would except these folks keep getting proven right, on the slope of these things. Overall divorce is down somewhat, but not the rates.

Quote
Alexander Hamilton, actually, and I have no idea why.  I guess you share a similar Political Matrix score and both oppose gay marriage.  Hamilton's reasons for opposing gay marriage were psychopathy masked in high-level arguments like this...that's why I was too willing to assume you were dismissing marginal benefits to gays as a non-benefit.  Sorry again.

Thanks for not calling me a psychopath.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 10:09:40 PM
Quote
And what exactly is this field in which you can't seek employment due to your religion?

I bet Alcon knows the answer. Corren amendment ring any bells?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 10:11:40 PM
Quote
You would be right, but society choosing to restrain people from harming themselves cannot be construed as punishment. You're assuming here that this is beneficial to those involved.

Then I'll be expecting your support for government regulation on a strict, harm-free diet consisting of fruits, vegetables and grains? Also, since firearm-related injuries and deaths occur ten times more often in homes that own guns than those that do not, will you also be supporting the removal of these harmful factors from the home and family life?

Quote
Quite the opposite, it's going to exacerbate them.

I'm not sure you read that right. Go back and read it again, because it appears you took the wrong  connotation from what I said.

Quote
Which is why gay people are insisting that family pictures being taken down, protesting rallies in support of traditional marriage, etc, etc, etc.

This is malarkey and it appears the right-wing e-mail forwards are starting to manifest in your speech. Taking down family pictures? Really? Give me *multiple* examples of the gay plot to do this, not just one random isolated article in a publication. As far as protesting rallies goes, and? I didn't realize gays didn't have the right to protest. You're protesting against their rights and as such, they can protest against you and even your right to protest them (since you are doing the exact same thing).

Quote
I cannot seek employment in my chosen field due to my religious and spiritual beliefs. Your comments here demonstrate that you are simply unaware of what is going on. No, it's not about simple tolerance, it's about the desire to undo society and remake it how you would prefer it to be. Even if that means destroying other people's lives, and the lives of those who have been on the other side.

That's your choice. Both sides change society. Both sides "destroy" individuals' lives in the name of their own ideals. The difference between yours and mine is one that embraces diversity versus one that embraces a monochromatic identity on all fronts. America has NEVER been monochromatic, but its legal system and allocation of human rights has. That is what is ending, and that's why all the wealthy, old, white, Christian men in this country are freaking out. You're losing your advantage and you cannot stand it. The sad news for you is that the left always wins on the social front, because you are nothing but a pebble in a river that forces the waters of change to roll around you. Social progress never stops. Its rate may be slowed down but cannot be halted, and this argument, too - just like every other social argument - will be lost by the conservatives.

Quote
Then why are they attacking those who say that they are sinning? If it's not about converting those who oppose them, why not simply leave them be?

Try leaving gays be and see what happens. I can assure you that gays do not give a flying flip about what straight people do; their involvement in the political process is for themselves and their fight against people like you who want to meddle in what the government allows them to do based on your religious doctrine.

Quote
Again, I have a goal, and that direction isn't helped by these actions.

May I ask what productive steps you have taken to pursue that goal and how you will convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage is in fact 'not OK'?

Quote
So you sincerely believe that we are saved if we meet our gay-hating quota?

Are you willing to make the statement that I, do, in fact, hate gay people?

Well, considering that there is no other place that you would draw your negative conclusions about gay people than from religious doctrine (and society that has been programmed to base its principle off of religious doctrine), and that religious doctrine clearly says what should be done to gay people, it would not be a far-off conclusion. Hate is such a strong word, though. I would say that you seriously dislike gay people and that you find them to be an abomination, just like your scripture tells you.

Quote
Ideas have consequences. Dissassociating marriage from having kids has negative consequences for society as a whole.

It's already been disassociated and it's never coming back. Deal with it. People don't want to have ten kids and farm all day, every day anymore. Marriage is not about having kids. There are no references to children in wedding vows, are there?

Quote
Why?

For the same reason that a child who has no toy wants the toy of someone else. They want to be included and they feel that they are excluded by society which has certain rules. They want to participate in what they see as a fundamental part of society.

They believe that if they can force other people to treat them the same as everyone else, that they will achieve the goal that they seek.

Marriage is done by the state. There is no secular reason to deny gay people the right to marry. Let the churches do what they will, the secular society has no "rules" that can be effectively applied to why gays should not be allowed to marry. Why do heterosexuals fight against marriage? For the same reason that an adolescent girl gets all pissy when she sees someone else with the same shirt.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 10:26:02 PM
It would except these folks keep getting proven right, on the slope of these things. Overall divorce is down somewhat, but not the rates.

I don't understand your response, so I'll ask again:  If there's no correlation between legalizing gay marriage and worse trends in divorce rates, don't you feel more uncertain?  Remember you were essentially arguing that the best we had was the simple "macro-level" correlation.  Here's a way to try to control for the variable you're trying to isolate it, and suddenly you seem kinda dismissive of the possibility.

I've seen the arguments since about 2000 or so, that people were consciously avoiding getting married out of solidarity with their gay brethren. Ergo, preventing gay marriage was a hindrance to marriage overall. Clearly it's been proven not to be the case.

...

It's been persistant for awhile now, and there has been some handwringing about it.

...

Personally, as a historian I think we are missing the forest for the trees, but then I'm weird, so that doesn't surprise me.

It's hard for me to imagine that any non-idiots ever thought those people would be enough to reverse the trend toward lower marriage rates, if it continued.  I've been involved in gay rights issues for a few years now, and I've literally never heard this argument once in my life...and I've heard some odd ones.

If you'd like to continue against a weak argument that seems rare and nonsensical to me, that's fine, but I don't see the point of shadowboxing the weakest possible argument unless you're arguing to your conclusions.

There's a difference between something that is statistically significant and something that is not. I don't believe sufficient time has passed to confirm the theory as true even if the evidence at present, on the surface, supports it.

"The theory" being what?  And what are you performing a statistical significance test on?  Confused.

If I were to compare birthrates between the folks who do believe in gay marriage and between those who don't, it's really stark. I know folks on both sides, and it's not even close. I think one of my conservative Catholic friends has more kids than all the folks on the other side combined.

So yeah, I do believe it's having a negative effect.

??? You think gay marriage is having a negative effect on society because gay marriage proponents tend to have fewer kids?

I've been on your side, and not that long ago. It's a reasonable argument, if all the premises follow. However, I think that at least two of your premises are sufficiently flawed to render the rest of the argument moot.

I don't think we've even touched on either premise yet.

I'm guessing this had more to do with your conversion to Catholicism, if we're going to equivocate correlation and causation.  :P  But go ahead, I'd like to hear the flawed premises.  I haven't really presented my argument, though, just because this thread is already complicated enough.  Caveat emptor...

Would a conservative frame this question in this matter?  A conservative frames innovations as having to show that they bring substantial benefit to society as a whole.

Traditions get some latitude on hurting people that innovation doesn't, eh?

Thanks for not calling me a psychopath.

I don't know if you're being facetious...nothing about your argument or conduct seems anything but well-intentioned.  I was just being honest about why I was inappropriately kind of unsympathetic at first. :S


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 10:43:32 PM
Quote
Then I'll be expecting your support for government regulation on a strict, harm-free diet consisting of fruits, vegetables and grains? Also, since firearm-related injuries and deaths occur ten times more often in homes that own guns than those that do not, will you also be supporting the removal of these harmful factors from the home and family life?

Ooh, I bet there's a difference between the state issuing licenses to do stuff and people being free to do stuff to themselves. ;)

Gosh, let's go see what Justic Thomas has to say about this.

Quote
Taking down family pictures?

ENDA? If an employee is aggrieved, he can file a grievance for politicies that he/she/it/whatever, feels oppresses he/she/it/whatever.

Quote
As far as protesting rallies goes, and? I didn't realize gays didn't have the right to protest.

Oh they do, but I do think publishing the locations of those who opposed the bill in CA went a bit far. 

Quote
The difference between yours and mine is one that embraces diversity

But it doesn't, not really. You aren't embracing diversity. You've merely shifted it from folks you don't like to folks you do.

Quote
wealthy, old, white, Christian men in this country are freaking out.

True, we think that the nation is determined to destroy itself and we kinda like this whole USA thingy.

Quote
The sad news for you is that the left always wins on the social front, because you are nothing but a pebble in a river that forces the waters of change to roll around you.

Funny thing about pebbles. How's it working against that Catholic church?

Quote
Try leaving gays be and see what happens.

If they are attempting to change marriage, then they aren't exactly 'leaving us be', are they?

Quote
I can assure you that gays do not give a flying flip about what straight people do

Then why do they want marriage?

Quote
who want to meddle in what the government allows them to do based on your religious doctrine.

How is defending what the law says meddling? Wouldn't an attempt to change the law be construed as meddling?

Quote
May I ask what productive steps you have taken to pursue that goal

Educate people as to what is at stake here.

Quote
and how you will convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage is in fact 'not OK'?

By telling them that they are right?

Quote
Well, considering that there is no other place that you would draw your negative conclusions about gay people than from religious doctrine (and society that has been programmed to base its principle off of religious doctrine), and that religious doctrine clearly says what should be done to gay people, it would not be a far-off conclusion.

You might want to check out Scripture. Start with John 3:14.

Quote
I would say that you seriously dislike gay people and that you find them to be an abomination, just like your scripture tells you.

Well, show me a scripture that says so and I'll concede the point.

Quote
It's already been disassociated and it's never coming back. Deal with it. People don't want to have ten kids and farm all day, every day anymore. Marriage is not about having kids. There are no references to children in wedding vows, are there?

Are there any references to teh buttsecks? ;)

This isn't really a good argument, you do know that, right?

Quote
Marriage is done by the state.

Ooh. That's an interesting argument. Since when has marriage been done by the state? Who came up with that?

Quote
There is no secular reason to deny gay people the right to marry.

Then it's just sorta random that the marriage laws worked out that way? Or did people like suddenly read the bible in 1950 and decided that teh buttsecks was not ok?

Quote
Let the churches do what they will, the secular society has no "rules" that can be effectively applied to why gays should not be allowed to marry. Why do heterosexuals fight against marriage? For the same reason that an adolescent girl gets all pissy when she sees someone else with the same shirt.

Apparently my previous assessment was spot on. Who came up with this idea of making marriage as it is - between one man and one woman, and made it enforced by the state?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 10:45:43 PM
Alcon:

That should fill in some of the gaps, yes, you're spot on sir.

Quote
I don't know if you're being facetious...nothing about your argument or conduct seems anything but well-intentioned.  I was just being honest about why I was inappropriately kind of unsympathetic at first. :S

I was hoping for a chuckle. :D

I'll reply to the rest in a bit.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 10:48:19 PM
haha, sounds good. :)  I just wouldn't be surprised if someone took exception to "psychopath" appearing in the same sentence as their name, for whatever reason.  Just making sure...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 11:06:37 PM
Quote
I don't understand your response, so I'll ask again:  If there's no correlation between legalizing gay marriage and worse trends in divorce rates, don't you feel more uncertain?  Remember you were essentially arguing that the best we had was the simple "macro-level" correlation.  Here's a way to try to control for the variable you're trying to isolate it, and suddenly you seem kinda dismissive of the possibility.

If thing A and thing B are headed kinda sorta in the right direction - what's the likelihood that the argument is correct? What if thingy A, B and C are all headed kinda sorta in the right direction?
What it A, B, C and D are all headed in kinda sorta the right direction. It increases with the square..

I hope this is a bit clearer...

Quote
It's hard for me to imagine that any non-idiots ever thought those people would be enough to reverse the trend toward lower marriage rates, if it continued.  I've been involved in gay rights issues for a few years now, and I've literally never heard this argument once in my life...and I've heard some odd ones.

Well, I recall it quite clearly back then and it was considered a substantive argument back then. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Quote
If you'd like to continue against a weak argument that seems rare and nonsensical to me, that's fine, but I don't see the point of shadowboxing the weakest possible argument unless you're arguing to your conclusions.

Not at all. I don't have much interest in arguing against that position.

Quote
"The theory" being what?

Santorum's theory here about broken windows wrt gay marriage and morals overall?

Quote
You think gay marriage is having a negative effect on society because gay marriage proponents tend to have fewer kids?

Yeah. I like kids and Santorum likes kids too. :) Kids are good. Need more of em cause of demographics.

Quote
But go ahead, I'd like to hear the flawed premises.

Well, the ones I consider flawed are the permanency of sexual preferences and role of marriage within society. I don't think the premise that homosexuality is fixed or that marriage is an individual right make any sense.

Quote
Traditions get some latitude on hurting people that innovation doesn't, eh?

A conservative would say that changes propagate through the system. It's not enough to say that things may be bad now, a change could make things worse than they are present. Alleviating something bad has to be weighed against unintended consequences. In short, they look at the second and third orders of the equation, not just the first.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: old timey villain on March 11, 2012, 11:10:22 PM
What I've realized is that almost every viewpoint in conservative idology stems from the desire to preserve a traditional and stable society. I don't think every conservative would be willing to get out there and protest with the Westboro Baptist church, for the record. I can think of many people I know who are opposed to gay marriage who have gay relatives and friends, and they wish them the best in life- but their opposition comes from a fear of what legalized gay marriage will bring.

A good analogy would be civil rights. Many opposed to integration were terrified that an integrated society would lead to race wars, and a collapse of civil society. Obviously, once the turmoil of the civil rights movement faded away, this collapse didn't happen.

It's no different today. Gay marriage will not lead to the destruction of the American family, family values or a civil society. Same sex couples want the same for themselves and their children that the rest of us want, something people tend to forget. And during the civil rights movement, black Americans wanted the same rights afforded to them and their families that whites were offered. It's as simple as that.

Many decades down the road, I predict that those who were once firmly opposed to gay marriage will see that none of their fears were realized, and I pray this happens sooner rather than later. Because we have bigger issues to face that are more important than whether gay couples get to sign the same slip of paper that straight couples do on their wedding day.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 11, 2012, 11:21:01 PM
If thing A and thing B are headed kinda sorta in the right direction - what's the likelihood that the argument is correct? What if thingy A, B and C are all headed kinda sorta in the right direction?
What it A, B, C and D are all headed in kinda sorta the right direction. It increases with the square..

I hope this is a bit clearer...

No...straight over my head.  More concreteness/directness would help.  I'm good with abstraction, but not if I don't know the components/variables involved.

Well, I recall it quite clearly back then and it was considered a substantive argument back then. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Man, what a stupid argument.  I'm not just saying that with the benefit of hindsight.  Politically passionate people tend to get hackish, but heterosexuals outnumber gays at least 9:1.  It's just a numerically stupid argument.

Santorum's theory here about broken windows wrt gay marriage and morals overall?

OK, you confused me because I thought you meant "statistically significant" in the mathematical sense.

Yeah. I like kids and Santorum likes kids too. :) Kids are good. Need more of em cause of demographics.

I like kids too, although I'm not sure society's biggest problem is the absence of kids among those dispassionate about having them.  But...anyway, I don't think gay marriage support is a causal agent in reducing individual fertility rates, but I think this may be an unnecessary side argument.  (You tell me if I'm wrong, of course)

Well, the ones I consider flawed are the permanency of sexual preferences and role of marriage within society. I don't think the premise that homosexuality is fixed or that marriage is an individual right make any sense.

I don't believe either of those in any absolute sense either.  I definitely don't think marriage itself is an individual right.  Although I think sexuality is somewhat more fluid than dynamic, I think it's a bit of both (overall - not necessarily on the individual level.)

A conservative would say that changes propagate through the system. It's not enough to say that things may be bad now, a change could make things worse than they are present. Alleviating something bad has to be weighed against unintended consequences. In short, they look at the second and third orders of the equation, not just the first.

I would prefer to preference such things in relationship to demonstrable reality, not some sort of vague ideological heuristic.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 11, 2012, 11:24:23 PM
Quote
Ooh, I bet there's a difference between the state issuing licenses to do stuff and people being free to do stuff to themselves. ;)

And I would bet that there are plenty of circumstances in which the government already issues licenses that allow individuals to cause harm (which was your original concern) to themselves and others under the aforementioned issues. CCLs? Liquor licenses? By that logic then, it seems OK for the government to "outsource" gay marriage and allow third-parties to authenticate the contract while simultaneously receiving government endorsement.



Quote
ENDA? If an employee is aggrieved, he can file a grievance for politicies that he/she/it/whatever, feels oppresses he/she/it/whatever.

Universal law. Not applicable to the gays and the gay agenda.

Quote
Oh they do, but I do think publishing the locations of those who opposed the bill in CA went a bit far.

Public records, FOIA. Representatives in most instances have their contact information - including addresses - posted on their legislative websites and portals.

Quote
But it doesn't, not really. You aren't embracing diversity. You've merely shifted it from folks you don't like to folks you do.

I'll give you the majority of this one. While I'm fine with anyone doing or saying anything and have never felt the need to persecute based solely on this, the moral perspective for me changes when those people decide that they want to be antithetical to what I consider necessary, and unfortunately I have to become a hypocrite in pursuit of my original ideas and values. Then we all get pulled down into the maelstrom and to the victor go the spoils.

Quote
True, we think that the nation is determined to destroy itself and we kinda like this whole USA thingy.

But most of you won't be around much longer. The country can't stay the same forever, nor will it. Most people do not fit into the worldview of that demographic and therefore have no allegiance to it. That is the number one problem facing the long-term sustainability of the modern Republican Party and conservative movement. Demographically speaking, nobody born today wants to be a part of it because they have no place in that vision.

Quote
Funny thing about pebbles. How's it working against that Catholic church?

Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

Quote
If they are attempting to change marriage, then they aren't exactly 'leaving us be', are they?

Because from a secular point of view, it's not yours to define. The institution recognized by the government is called 'marriage', but is a de facto civil union and not controlled by any church. You go to the church to have your ceremony and you go to the courthouse to get your license.

Quote
Then why do they want marriage?

Hmm, I guess for the same reason that heterosexuals decided a few thousand years back that they wanted to buy a woman and own her for life. As Marcus Bachmann said, "Barbarians need to be educated".

Quote
How is defending what the law says meddling? Wouldn't an attempt to change the law be construed as meddling?

Only if you consider the job of the executive, legislative and judicial branches to be meddling. Laws change, it's natural.

Quote
Educate people as to what is at stake here.

Much more must be done if you are to succeed. I can simply run my mouth, seeing as how the flow of progress marches with my ideology. You, on the other hand, have to march against the grain in this country, which brings me to the next point...

Quote
By telling them that they are right?

It's not 2004 anymore. A majority of Americans support gay marriage in 2012.

Quote
You might want to check out Scripture. Start with John 3:14.

Quote from: Marcus Bachmann
"Barbarians need to be educated."

Quote
Well, show me a scripture that says so and I'll concede the point.

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states to view homosexuals as abominations. Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. That's a pretty strong sentence for someone who isn't disliked.


Quote
Are there any references to teh buttsecks? ;)

This isn't really a good argument, you do know that, right?

Meh, it doesn't have to be. The reality of the social situation is the best argument for my point.

Quote
Ooh. That's an interesting argument. Since when has marriage been done by the state? Who came up with that?

The part of marriage that I was referring to and that I care about is done by the state. As mentioned earlier, 'marriage' is done by the state in the aspect of how it is called 'marriage', even though it's a civil union. I could care less about the ceremonial pomp and circumstance.

Quote
Then it's just sorta random that the marriage laws worked out that way? Or did people like suddenly read the bible in 1950 and decided that teh buttsecks was not ok?

You're directly advocating theocracy in 2012. You don't think the sentiment was stronger in eras past?


Quote
Apparently my previous assessment was spot on. Who came up with this idea of making marriage as it is - between one man and one woman, and made it enforced by the state?

-Refer two statements above.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: RI on March 11, 2012, 11:45:37 PM
Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

()


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 11, 2012, 11:59:08 PM
I can't stop laughing at Davy Mitt.

Quote
And I would bet that there are plenty of circumstances in which the government already issues licenses that allow individuals to cause harm

Quote
CCLs?

Protected under the 2nd.

Quote
Liquor licenses?

Protected under the 21st.

The government does this only very specific circumstances. Marriage, is not one of them. There are actually laws against marriage deemed harmful, ie consanguinity laws, bigamy laws, etc.

Quote
By that logic then, it seems OK for the government to "outsource" gay marriage and allow third-parties to authenticate the contract while simultaneously receiving government endorsement.

See above as to why not.

Quote
Universal law. Not applicable to the gays and the gay agenda.

But entirely applicable. That's the point. ENDA could legitimately be used in this fashion.

Quote
Public records, FOIA. Representatives in most instances have their contact information - including addresses - posted on their legislative websites and portals.

Most jurisdictions would consider forming mobs and coordinating them to these locations to be harrassment. I have no problem with peaceful protest, but going after people in their homes not ok.

Quote
I'll give you the majority of this one. While I'm fine with anyone doing or saying anything and have never felt the need to persecute based solely on this, the moral perspective for me changes when those people decide that they want to be antithetical to what I consider necessary, and unfortunately I have to become a hypocrite in pursuit of my original ideas and values. Then we all get pulled down into the maelstrom and to the victor go the spoils.

It's not necessary, and it harms your cause. You end up taking people who might be interested in supporting you and driving them to the opposition. You may see it as a crusade for human rights - but what they see is how you treat the people right in front of you.

If your opposition is the one coming off as rational and respectful, then you lose. And I'm sure that's not in your best interest.

Quote
But most of you won't be around much longer. The country can't stay the same forever, nor will it. Most people do not fit into the worldview of that demographic and therefore have no allegiance to it. That is the number one problem facing the long-term sustainability of the modern Republican Party and conservative movement. Demographically speaking, nobody born today wants to be a part of it because they have no place in that vision.

What's that saying? Reap the whirlwind?

I see the long term too. I see an ideology that looks about 2 inches in front of itself and misses the other things going on. Sure, suppose you get what you want and your vision is correct. What then? There are major structural problems that the democrats are oblivious to (and tbh, many republicans as well). This has nothing to do with ideology or pointing fingers.

Everything I see in the liberal democracy program is unsustainable. The way we see thing is that we're your best alternative. It doesn't have to be us. And perhaps it won't, but I suspect you won't like the other if it isn't us.

Quote
Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control and wear rubbers.

We'll be here when they've forgotten there ever existed a democrat party.

Quote
Because from a secular point of view, it's not yours to define.

Then who's is it? If it's not ours? I'm not arguing against your point, but it raises the question of who does.

Quote
The institution recognized by the government is called 'marriage'

But it was not invented by the state. Where does it come from?

Quote
You go to the church to have your ceremony and you go to the courthouse to get your license.

And why can't we simply go and get one from the Church without involving the state?

Quote
Hmm, I guess for the same reason that heterosexuals decided a few thousand years back that they wanted to buy a woman and own her for life. As Marcus Bachmann said, "Barbarians need to be educated".

So let's dispense with that argument that gay people don't care. They are engaged in the political process, and so are we.

Quote
Only if you consider the job of the executive, legislative and judicial branches to be meddling. Laws change, it's natural.

Ah, but stopping them from changing is unnatural. What's that law again? An object at rest...

Quote
Much more must be done if you are to succeed. I can simply run my mouth, seeing as how the flow of progress marches with my ideology. You, on the other hand, have to march against the grain in this country, which brings me to the next point...

Ah, yes, inorexable progress, onwards and upwards. Third star to the right, and straight on until morning.

Quote
It's not 2004 anymore. A majority of Americans support gay marriage in 2012.

Then why does it lose in California?

Quote
Leviticus 18:22

Quote
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Leviticus says that the act is an abomination, not the person.

Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. That's a pretty strong sentence for someone who isn't disliked.

Quote
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

they have committed an abomination, not, they are an abomination. You are incorrect here. Scripture teaches that the act is different from the person - for as Christ himself says, "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin".

Anyone can be redeemed from their sins. Anyone, but the sin itself is an abomination.

Quote
Meh, it doesn't have to be. The reality of the social situation is the best argument for my point.

And when the zeitgeist blew the other way, did you say that this was so?

Quote
The part of marriage that I was referring to and that I care about is done by the state.

Who started doing it this way? Where does this arrangement originate?

Quote
You're directly advocating theocracy in 2012. You don't think the sentiment was stronger in eras past?

I'm more interested as to how this marriage law came about in America. Did they hold a consitutional amendment? What did they do?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 12, 2012, 12:02:49 AM
Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

()

Oh come on. This is how polls work. You don't poll segments that are not relevant to the measurement; the women omitted either are too young or too old (and would most likely follow similar levels of usage when looking back at their earlier days) at the time it was taken. Are you going to make the argument that since only a few thousand women were actually polled, that only 0.000001% of Catholic women use it? Or maybe we should add Catholic men to the disenfranchised since you can't spell 'Catholic Women' without 'Catholic Men'?

I'm not sure that 60 year-old women have to worry about using contraception. 15-44 is the vast, vast majority of fertile women, therefore there is no statistical reason to poll pre-pubescent and post-menopausal women.

I'm also not sure that women who are not currently engaging in sexual intercourse would use birth control as a means of contraception (perhaps they may use it for hormonal balances or another reason), but again, not a relevant demographic for the question.

Also, the same study found that only 2% of all Catholic women (faithful adherents and looseys alike) use "natural family planning".


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 12:12:08 AM
Realistic Idealist - you're a Catholic right?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: RI on March 12, 2012, 12:12:55 AM
Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

()

Oh come on. This is how polls work. You don't poll segments that are not relevant to the measurement; the women omitted either are too young or too old (and would most likely follow similar levels of usage when looking back at their earlier days) at the time it was taken. Are you going to make the argument that since only a few thousand women were actually polled, that only 0.000001% of Catholic women use it? Or maybe we should add Catholic men to the disenfranchised since you can't spell 'Catholic Women' without 'Catholic Men'?

I'm not sure that 60 year-old women have to worry about using contraception. 15-44 is the vast, vast majority of fertile women, therefore there is no statistical reason to poll pre-pubescent and post-menopausal women.

I'm also not sure that women who are not currently engaging in sexual intercourse would use birth control as a means of contraception (perhaps they may use it for hormonal balances or another reason), but again, not a relevant demographic for the question.

Also, the same study found that only 2% of all Catholic women (faithful adherents and looseys alike) use "natural family planning".

*facepalm*

It's not saying that because they used sampling the statistic is invalid. It's saying that the number that people have been flinging around is based upon an unrepresentative sample, and therefore is only valid for the subsample of Catholic women that they were studying and can't be extended to the distinct populations they didn't measure.

Realistic Idealist - you're a Catholic right?

Yes.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 12:14:05 AM
Wow, 100 percent of posters on Atlas forum are Catholic.

Cool.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 12, 2012, 12:52:24 AM
Quote
I can't stop laughing at Davy Mitt.

LOL



Quote
Protected under the 2nd. Protected under the 21st.

The government does this only very specific circumstances. Marriage, is not one of them. There are actually laws against marriage deemed harmful, ie consanguinity laws, bigamy laws, etc.

Fair enough.

Quote
But entirely applicable. That's the point. ENDA could legitimately be used in this fashion.

It could also be used by you to counter the situation, given the appropriate context, or could be used by you in a position of "offense" if you are facing discrimination.

Quote
Most jurisdictions would consider forming mobs and coordinating them to these locations to be harrassment. I have no problem with peaceful protest, but going after people in their homes not ok.

The initial statement was in regards to the posting and accessibility of the information and that's to what I was referring. Perhaps it's not nice to do such a thing, but I highly doubt these people were scaling the walls of the house. Protests in front of any house on public property - depending on needed permits and being in accordance with local regulations - is legal.

Quote
It's not necessary, and it harms your cause. You end up taking people who might be interested in supporting you and driving them to the opposition. You may see it as a crusade for human rights - but what they see is how you treat the people right in front of you.

Tell me, would you be interested in supporting my position? This is one of those issues where there's very little grey area between varying points. Do you genuinely believe that gays are discriminating against you due to their quest for recognition by their government? I feel that the levels of discrimination applied by each side are not even.

Quote
What's that saying? Reap the whirlwind?

I see the long term too. I see an ideology that looks about 2 inches in front of itself and misses the other things going on. Sure, suppose you get what you want and your vision is correct. What then? There are major structural problems that the democrats are oblivious to (and tbh, many republicans as well). This has nothing to do with ideology or pointing fingers.

Everything I see in the liberal democracy program is unsustainable. The way we see thing is that we're your best alternative. It doesn't have to be us. And perhaps it won't, but I suspect you won't like the other if it isn't us.

More like embracing the changing fabric of the country. I cannot think of a permanently sustainable country or society that determines its course based on the opinions of a small or shrinking sect of individuals.  The only major issues that shape this country's destiny are the economic ones. I typically don't argue social issues like this because by and large, they sort themselves out and generally do so in my favor over time. The truth is that the two parties are not exact in their polarity, and the vision of the modern Democratic Party is very similar economically to the platform of the Republican Party in years past. We have one far-right party and one centrist party.

Quote
Then who's is it? If it's not ours? I'm not arguing against your point, but it raises the question of who does.

It's a good question. I wish to further clarify my position by postulating, "Who decides how marriages/civil unions that are conducted by the state are defined?" I have no desire to force churches or religious institutions to recognize gay marriage. I want the license that the state issues to be issued to any two individuals who wish to engage in that civil contract.

Quote
But it was not invented by the state. Where does it come from?

From two sources, depending on where you were located in the world:

1) From the desire for human clans and families to combine their resources in a fashion that would work in their favor
2) From the construct of religion, which in effect served as a primitive form of government that held people together by common belief before concepts of modern society and democracy arose.

Quote
And why can't we simply go and get one from the Church without involving the state?

Because then it wouldn't be recognized by or affiliated with the state and therefore would not be an issue of debate in this discussion. Again, I'm not arguing against the church being able to perform a ceremony as it sees fit. There's absolutely no reason, however, for the government to hand over its form of an institution - that in the modern day has connotations and implications that are not related to religion - back to an entity that is supposed to be separate from this government.

Quote
Ah, but stopping them from changing is unnatural. What's that law again? An object at rest...

Which cannot be applied in a transient, temporary sense to complex human entities and the dynamic societies that they have created. We are objects in motion.

Quote
Ah, yes, inorexable progress, onwards and upwards. Third star to the right, and straight on until morning.

Perhaps in your situation it would be labeled "regress", but the general sentiment that you outlined is correct. I think many conservatives have realized this. When you only stand to keep things the same, the tides of progress wash it away. The only way to counter it is to go backwards and drag the median rate of movement in the other direction. That's why the country is talking about contraception in 2012. Smart move on behalf of conservatives; even if it kills their poll numbers and chances of taking back the Senate and keeping the House, it does pull the national dialog back to a more conservative point.  

Quote
Then why does it lose in California?

That was four years ago, and as silly as it may sound to contrast between 2008 and 2012, public opinion is shifting faster on gay rights than on any other social issue. There will most likely be a ballot initiative this year and public polls show solid support (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/california-gay-marriage-poll_n_1310918.html).


Quote
Leviticus says that the act is an abomination, not the person.

Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. That's a pretty strong sentence for someone who isn't disliked.

they have committed an abomination, not, they are an abomination. You are incorrect here. Scripture teaches that the act is different from the person - for as Christ himself says, "Love the Sinner, hate the Sin".

Based on my upbringing and exposure to an environment that is about as religious as it gets, I don't buy this. I realize that is the talking point and expected this response, but I don't believe the average religious individual separates the sin from the sinner. Although maybe you do, since I'm guessing you consider homosexuality to be a choice rather than a fact of life.


Quote
And when the zeitgeist blew the other way, did you say that this was so?

Obviously it wouldn't be to my liking, but it would still be the reality.


Quote
Who started doing it this way? Where does this arrangement originate?

Mercedes built the first modern automobile engine, but it didn't give them say over the entire auto industry for the past 130 years. Government thanks religion for its contribution and inspiration, but does not require it to provide its own alternative.

Quote
I'm more interested as to how this marriage law came about in America. Did they hold a consitutional amendment? What did they do?

Are you referring to DOMA or another specific law, or are you simply referring to how law surrounding marriage developed over time in America?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Lief 🗽 on March 12, 2012, 01:02:58 AM
Um, pretty good, considering 98% of Catholics take birth control, wear rubbers and eat meat on Fridays.

()

...this picture is stupid. Pre-pubescent girls and post-menopausal women don't use birth control, for obvious reasons. Women who don't have sex don't use birth control, again for obvious reasons. And finally, if you want to get pregnant, you're not going to use birth control, again for obvious reasons! This is like casting doubt on election polls because they don't include the opinions of non-citizens, felons, and children. People who have no need for birth control are completely irrelevant to a survey of the percentage of Catholic women who use birth control. 


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Adam Griffin on March 12, 2012, 01:11:39 AM

*facepalm*

It's not saying that because they used sampling the statistic is invalid. It's saying that the number that people have been flinging around is based upon an unrepresentative sample, and therefore is only valid for the subsample of Catholic women that they were studying and can't be extended to the distinct populations they didn't measure.

I understand what you initially meant, I was just being facetious. I don't agree that it is an unrepresentative sample (at least in broad terms) as much as I think the phrasing of the results were altered through the media. Virtually all polls have variables in them that can be viewed in similar regards (polls that count unregistered voters, polls with a margin of error larger than the difference between candidates/opinions, oversampling, etc).

Contraception hasn't been controversial in a long time, even among Catholics at-large. It's something that perhaps 80+ year-old Catholic women might have found unacceptable, but other than that, it's something that's been used by virtually all women at one point or another who were sexually active for long periods of time. We're talking about the question "Have you ever used any form of contraception?". Even taking into account the variables that were mentioned, I doubt that less than 90% of Catholic women have used BC/contraception at one point or another.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: RI on March 12, 2012, 01:58:54 AM
People who have no need for birth control are completely irrelevant to a survey of the percentage of Catholic women who use birth control. 

It's completely relevant when people on this forum and elsewhere bandy about the phrase "98% of Catholic women use birth control" as though it were a law of nature when the study shows anything but.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 12, 2012, 02:39:08 AM
The point is that the vast majority of Catholic women ignore the rule, even if it's not 98%. Also the percentage obviously increases if you include people baptized Catholic but who no longer identify as such (no rational person would ever want to count such people as Catholic obviously, but many Catholics would argue they still do.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 09:33:10 AM
Quote
Contraception hasn't been controversial in a long time

Which is why the papal encyclicals then and now condemn it?

Quote
even among Catholics at-large. It's something that perhaps 80+ year-old Catholic women might have found unacceptable, but other than that, it's something that's been used by virtually all women at one point or another who were sexually active for long periods of time.

That doesn't even necessarily mean that the women were Catholic when they used it.

Why didn't they simply ask: "Do you agree with Humanae Vitae in what it teaches about contraception?

Yes/No. Simple. Gets the job done and answers the question. We wouldn't accept PP's 'poll', if it were entered in the database, on the grounds of sample issues. You can't cherry pick your sample.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 10:13:11 AM
Quote
It could also be used by you to counter the situation, given the appropriate context, or could be used by you in a position of "offense" if you are facing discrimination.

If the law is so poorly written as to permit this, it's a real concern, is it not?

Quote
The initial statement was in regards to the posting and accessibility of the information and that's to what I was referring. Perhaps it's not nice to do such a thing, but I highly doubt these people were scaling the walls of the house. Protests in front of any house on public property - depending on needed permits and being in accordance with local regulations - is legal.

Yeah, and going to people's houses is ok when your side does it? I hardly think so. I would wager that had the attention gone the other way, you would have argued that privacy would protect them. Odd that. Privacy protects some but not others, eh?

Quote
Tell me, would you be interested in supporting my position?

I have been in the past.

Quote
Do you genuinely believe that gays are discriminating against you due to their quest for recognition by their government?

Yes, I believe that. Given my experiences, gay people have a giant blind spot that permits them to run roughshod over everyone else in the pursuit of their goal.

Quote
I feel that the levels of discrimination applied by each side are not even.

It is unlikely that a proponent of gay marriage would admit otherwise.

Quote
More like embracing the changing fabric of the country.

Meanwhile, record deficits are piling up. Who's going to pay them? Is a society that rejects what America is based upon going to care about forcing a default on the people? Are they going to care about things like the constitution, if it means stripping away private people's property in order to prevent a default?

Quote
I cannot think of a permanently sustainable country or society that determines its course based on the opinions of a small or shrinking sect of individuals.

Well, we're all you've got. So if society is determined to turn away from us, then they are going to bear the consequences...

 
Quote
The only major issues that shape this country's destiny are the economic ones. I typically don't argue social issues like this because by and large, they sort themselves out and generally do so in my favor over time. The truth is that the two parties are not exact in their polarity, and the vision of the modern Democratic Party is very similar economically to the platform of the Republican Party in years past. We have one far-right party and one centrist party.

Hence my statement that they are completely blind to the devastation that's just down the road, I'm not even talking socially, I'm talking fiscally.

Quote
It's a good question. I wish to further clarify my position by postulating, "Who decides how marriages/civil unions that are conducted by the state are defined?" I have no desire to force churches or religious institutions to recognize gay marriage. I want the license that the state issues to be issued to any two individuals who wish to engage in that civil contract.

Doesn't answer the question. Who does have the ability to re-define marriage, and how it works?

Quote
From two sources, depending on where you were located in the world:

1) From the desire for human clans and families to combine their resources in a fashion that would work in their favor
2) From the construct of religion, which in effect served as a primitive form of government that held people together by common belief before concepts of modern society and democracy arose.

Ok. Now fast forward. What is the legal source for laws in America? Where does America get their laws from?

Quote
Because then it wouldn't be recognized by or affiliated with the state and therefore would not be an issue of debate in this discussion.

But why is this illegal, and who made this so?

Quote
Again, I'm not arguing against the church being able to perform a ceremony as it sees fit.

And I'm not even arguing that they ought to be responsible for it, I'm just asking the question - as to why this is illegal, and who was responsible for this change, since as you've said, it was the Church that used to be responsible for it.


Quote
There's absolutely no reason, however, for the government to hand over its form of an institution - that in the modern day has connotations and implications that are not related to religion - back to an entity that is supposed to be separate from this government.

But who's argument is this? How far does this go back?

Quote
Which cannot be applied in a transient, temporary sense to complex human entities and the dynamic societies that they have created. We are objects in motion.

Naturally, an object at rest will continue to be at rest. Ergo, the law that is settled should remain so. ;) Stare Decesis. If you want to argue against Stare Decesis, go ahead. 

Quote
Perhaps in your situation it would be labeled "regress", but the general sentiment that you outlined is correct. I think many conservatives have realized this. When you only stand to keep things the same, the tides of progress wash it away. The only way to counter it is to go backwards and drag the median rate of movement in the other direction. That's why the country is talking about contraception in 2012. Smart move on behalf of conservatives; even if it kills their poll numbers and chances of taking back the Senate and keeping the House, it does pull the national dialog back to a more conservative point. 

It's all tied together. I think there is significant desire to return to things as they were - if you had asked me that Rick Santorum would be running for president in America and would be a serious candidate, oh in December of this year, I would have said you were crazy.

His poll numbers were what, 2 percent nationally or something like that? Less?

Santorum's caught fire because he's spoken for a great many of us and reflects our concerns and our issues with America today. People are really tired with the chaos of the past 4 years. They are concerned that the America that they know and love is going away.

When you speak of your desire to remake all of it, that's not exactly going to encourage people who are already concerned with things.

As for 'social things' always winning - there's a pendulum, and when it finally swings back you're going to be wondering what on earth is going on. People want stability. They want to be able to get up in the morning and not have to worry about what nutjob policy that Barack Obama has dreamed up. They want to get up and know that a 5 dollar bill will get them to work and back, they want to be able to set aside 100 dollars for their bills and have that cover it.

Then they see Barack Obama pushing money to his friends and what are they supposed to think, when their basics of life skyrocket up? When the money that they make doesn't quite stretch far enough? When the state defaults and gets downgraded?

Like I said, I'm one of the more reasonable folks. You might not like the other more unreasonable folks.

Quote
That was four years ago, and as silly as it may sound to contrast between 2008 and 2012, public opinion is shifting faster on gay rights than on any other social issue. There will most likely be a ballot initiative this year and public polls show solid support.

You said that back in 08. Didn't happen.

BTW - no Canadian province voted on gay marriage either, just as none have voted on it in the US. Ballot initiatives are 0 for quite a long list, which is why gay marriage proponents don't do ballot initiatives.

You run it through the courts and the legislatures. Every time.

Quote
Based on my upbringing and exposure to an environment that is about as religious as it gets, I don't buy this. I realize that is the talking point and expected this response, but I don't believe the average religious individual separates the sin from the sinner.

Your argument is that the bible teaches x. I am saying that the bible does not teach X. Some Christians may think this, but they are incorrect if they do so. I am pointing out to you that the bible does make the distinction between the sinner and the sin. Even in the old testament and even in leviticus. It says that the sin is the abomination and not the sinner.

Quote
Although maybe you do, since I'm guessing you consider homosexuality to be a choice rather than a fact of life.

Yes, I do. People choose to indulge in their impulses, and that's certainly not restricted to just one sin...

Quote
Obviously it wouldn't be to my liking, but it would still be the reality.

Then I can only conclude that this is a passing fad.

And, no, DOMA is not what I'm referring to. Further back then this (considerably so), but not as far back as you went.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 03:47:16 PM
Still really waiting for a reply on what I thought would be a simple empirical question (plus the other stuff.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 04:11:24 PM
Quote
Still really waiting for a reply on what I thought would be a simple empirical question (plus the other stuff.)

Mind restating them? We've been talking past each other...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 04:28:56 PM
??? It's the one you tried to reply to with your last post.

Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that your hypothesis (the "broken window" effect, exacerbated by gay marriage) should be presumed valid because the evidence (continued deterioration in marriage statistics) supports it.  I asked whether you would be inclined to reject your hypothesis if, after trying to isolate the variable "presence of same-sex marriage" -- since heterosexual trends could naturally be expected to drown out any non-extreme effect of same-sex marriage -- no correlation was evident

(By the way, I'm surprised to see you making the "you argued that polls were changing in 2008 -- it didn't happen" argument.  Does failing short of 50% somehow nullify well-substantiated trends?  If not, this is a non sequitur reply.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: TheGlobalizer on March 12, 2012, 07:21:29 PM
Jesus actual f**king Christ I hate this guy.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 07:42:13 PM
Quote
Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that your hypothesis (the "broken window" effect, exacerbated by gay marriage) should be presumed valid because the evidence (continued deterioration in marriage statistics) supports it.

All I said is that the evidence we have at present supports the thesis. I don't believe it's sufficient to prove the thesis.

Quote
I asked whether you would be inclined to reject your hypothesis if, after trying to isolate the variable "presence of same-sex marriage" -- since heterosexual trends could naturally be expected to drown out any non-extreme effect of same-sex marriage -- no correlation was evident

I would be inclined to reject the hypothesis if the evidence presented was precisely the opposite of what the thesis argued.

I hope that's clearer.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 10:07:17 PM
Quote
Your argument, as far as I understand it, is that your hypothesis (the "broken window" effect, exacerbated by gay marriage) should be presumed valid because the evidence (continued deterioration in marriage statistics) supports it.

All I said is that the evidence we have at present supports the thesis. I don't believe it's sufficient to prove the thesis.

Quote
I asked whether you would be inclined to reject your hypothesis if, after trying to isolate the variable "presence of same-sex marriage" -- since heterosexual trends could naturally be expected to drown out any non-extreme effect of same-sex marriage -- no correlation was evident

I would be inclined to reject the hypothesis if the evidence presented was precisely the opposite of what the thesis argued.

I hope that's clearer.

OK.  So, just to clarify, if I run a comparison of divorce trends in jurisdictions that have legalized same-sex marriage versus those that have not, and it does not indicate a correlation suggesting that legalization of same-sex marriage is an explanatory variable (or that it's a mitigating variable), will you...

1. ...reject your hypothesis?

2. ...accept the counter-hypothesis I described as most accurately matching the evidence?

I mean, in your previous posts, you have put a lot of stock in this "broken window" hypothesis.  When I asked you why you bought into it, you basically said that this correlation (gay marriage's failure to reverse preexisting trends) was the only empirical evidence we have on the subject, and that it was the proper measuring-stick for evaluating our respective hypotheses.  You conceded that gay marriage may have a positive effect, or no effect, but that all we can see is that the overall trend has been toward more divorce as same-sex marriage has become an issue -- and, however secondary that correlation is, it's the most direct empirical evidence we have.

I am presenting a method that attempts to isolate the variable "presence of same-sex marriage," which is what we are trying to do here.  It is objectively better evidence: it establishes direct, instead of secondary or tertiary, correlation.  It may not be perfect, but if you put so much stock in secondary/tertiary correlations, consistency seems to demand you put a lot of import into evidence that isolates the variable you want to look at.  Right?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 10:10:28 PM
Quote
OK.  So, just to clarify, if I run a comparison of divorce trends in jurisdictions that have legalized same-sex marriage versus those that have not, and it does not indicate a correlation suggesting that legalization of same-sex marriage is an explanatory variable, will you...

Statistically significant evidence - showing that the divorce rate has dropped, yes. Inconclusive evidence? No.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 12, 2012, 10:13:50 PM
Fun fact, the state that has had gay marriage the longest, Massachusetts, also has the lowest divorce rate per capita. No other state has gay couples that have been married 5 years in that state and want to divorce. And they're still the lowest.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 10:18:38 PM
They are also 3rd lowest in marriage rate.

Only CT and DC are lower.

GA has the same divorce rate but has a higher marriage rate.



Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: TJ in Oregon on March 12, 2012, 10:19:00 PM
Fun fact, the state that has had gay marriage the longest, Massachusetts, also has the lowest divorce rate per capita. No other state has gay couples that have been married 5 years in that state and want to divorce. And they're still the lowest.

Massachusetts has had the lowest divorce rate long before gay marriage was legalized (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html).

I doubt you will find much difference if any in the divorce rate from legalizing gay marriage.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on March 12, 2012, 10:20:28 PM
Fun fact, the state that has had gay marriage the longest, Massachusetts, also has the lowest divorce rate per capita. No other state has gay couples that have been married 5 years in that state and want to divorce. And they're still the lowest.

Massachusetts has had the lowest divorce rate long before gay marriage was legalized (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html).

I doubt you will find much difference if any in the divorce rate from legalizing gay marriage.

Well, what's more impressive is that they've kept it up when they were the only and then one of the few states with gay marriage.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 10:21:36 PM
Quote
OK.  So, just to clarify, if I run a comparison of divorce trends in jurisdictions that have legalized same-sex marriage versus those that have not, and it does not indicate a correlation suggesting that legalization of same-sex marriage is an explanatory variable, will you...

Statistically significant evidence - showing that the divorce rate has dropped, yes. Inconclusive evidence? No.

Hold on.  You accepted the declining marriage rates as compelling evidence despite the fact that you can't run a statistical significance test on it!  You didn't testing any variable; you're just saying "thing A happened as thing B happened, so it's likelier that thing A explains thing B than that it doesn't."  You're accepting circumstantial evidence there.  Now I'm running an analysis that compares the relationship between thing A and thing B in places that have same-sex marriage versus those that don't.  Once I isolate the variable -- which removes the "noise" of irrelevant variables! -- you're now rejecting circumstantial evidence and requiring a statistical significance test.  Wtf?  You must know that makes no sense.

It's indefensible to accept Hypothesis A and reject Hypothesis B, when Hypothesis B has more evidence than Hypothesis A, just because Hypothesis B doesn't reach statistical significance...especially if Hypothesis A's evidence is so circumstantial (i.e., more indirect) that you can't even perform a statistical significance test on it!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 10:29:01 PM
Fun fact, the state that has had gay marriage the longest, Massachusetts, also has the lowest divorce rate per capita. No other state has gay couples that have been married 5 years in that state and want to divorce. And they're still the lowest.

Massachusetts has had the lowest divorce rate long before gay marriage was legalized (http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html).

I doubt you will find much difference if any in the divorce rate from legalizing gay marriage.

I agree with you...unlike Ben, I doubt that gay marriage has an effect on the divorce or marriage rates either way.  However, in the first five years of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts, the divorce rate fell 21%, compared to 3% in states that disallowed same-sex marriage and reported statistics (n=43).  Highly statistically significant, as was the difference over the same period between states banning same-sex marriage and those who just don't have it.

Weak evidence?  Fairly.  Weaker than the evidence ("divorce rates haven't reversed after same-sex marriage started!") Ben used centrally to argue his hypothesis ("same-sex marriage causes a 'broken window' with negative externalities to heterosexual marriage")?  Nope -- that evidence is about as weak as you can get.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 10:30:22 PM
Quote
Well, what's more impressive is that they've kept it up when they were the only and then one of the few states with gay marriage.

Not really. Fewer people actually choosing to get married supports the broken window argument. More people choosing to get married is a benefit for the state, as well as lower rates of children born out of wedlock.

It's now up to 41 percent nationwide as of 2009, if you can find me MA stats, I'd love to see them.

29 percent for white non hispanic, 53 for hispanic, 73 for black.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 10:36:14 PM
Quote
Well, what's more impressive is that they've kept it up when they were the only and then one of the few states with gay marriage.

Not really. Fewer people actually choosing to get married supports the broken window argument. More people choosing to get married is a benefit for the state, as well as lower rates of children born out of wedlock.

It's now up to 41 percent nationwide as of 2009, if you can find me MA stats, I'd love to see them.

29 percent for white non hispanic, 53 for hispanic, 73 for black.

I was looking at it a few minutes ago, but Massachusetts's change in marriage rate for the same period was about national average.  Did you actually look these statistics up before reaching your position, or were you just hoping they'd match the conclusions you already came to?

Edit: Also, clarification on which variable(s) you want to test -- out-of-wedlock birth rate, marriage rate, divorce rate, whatever -- would help.  I'm not going to do the work testing your hypothesis just to find out you've changed your mind on variables :P


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 10:37:13 PM
Quote
Hold on.  You accepted the declining marriage rates as compelling evidence

No, I did not. I said I accepted the declining marriage rates as evidence in favor of the broken window hypothesis, expecially when coupled with rising numbers of children born out of wedlock.

Quote
Despite the fact that you can't run a statistical significance test on it!

Uh, 'can't' is a very different statement from saying that I haven't done so which is what I did say. Feel free.

Quote
You didn't testing any variable; you're just saying "thing A happened as thing B happened, so it's likelier that thing A explains thing B than that it doesn't."

Yessir, I'm saying that the evidence that we do have supports the argument.

Quote
You're accepting circumstantial evidence there.

I'm accepting evidence that supports the conclusion that we are looking at, yes.

Quote
Now I'm running an analysis that compares the relationship between thing A and thing B in places that have same-sex marriage versus those that don't.

And you yourself have admitted that there's nothing to indicate your claim which is that gay marriage has actually increased marraige rates.

Again, I said, if I'm going to believe that gay marriage is a net benefit, then I want to see increases in the marriage rate. That's not happening. Inconclusive evidence isn't sufficient to prove the alternative.

You seem to believe that I should treat your evidence as compelling, even though you've said so yourself, that it is not.

Quote
you're now rejecting circumstantial evidence

What circumstantial evidence is there for the marriage rate increasing?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 10:40:47 PM
Quote
However, in the first five years of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts, the divorce rate fell 21%, compared to 3% in states that disallowed same-sex marriage and reported statistics (n=43). 

Where are you getting this from?

I'm getting my national numbers from:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf

Which is the CDC numbers for 2009.

Quote
Highly statistically significant, as was the difference over the same period between states banning same-sex marriage and those who just don't have it.

What was the marriage rate at the time?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 10:51:12 PM
No, I did not. I said I accepted the declining marriage rates as evidence in favor of the broken window hypothesis, expecially when coupled with rising numbers of children born out of wedlock.

??? That's exactly what I was saying...

Uh, 'can't' is a very different statement from saying that I haven't done so which is what I did say. Feel free.

No, you can't.  Your analysis only compares one measurement (appearance of same-sex marriage) to another measurement (overall non-change in marriage rate.)  You literally can't perform a statistical significance test on that.  You could perform a correlation test if you had some sort of objective measure for "appearance of same-sex marriage," but that's it.

Yessir, I'm saying that the evidence that we do have supports the argument.

I'm accepting evidence that supports the conclusion that we are looking at, yes.

Right, and it's incredibly weak (secondary correlation) evidence.  And the evidence I'm proposing we get is better evidence.

And you yourself have admitted that there's nothing to indicate your claim which is that gay marriage has actually increased marraige rates.

I never made that claim.  I called that claim stupid...like three times?

Again, I said, if I'm going to believe that gay marriage is a net benefit, then I want to see increases in the marriage rate. That's not happening. Inconclusive evidence isn't sufficient to prove the alternative.

You seem to believe that I should treat your evidence as compelling, even though you've said so yourself, that it is not.

...

What circumstantial evidence is there for the marriage rate increasing?

...I just wrote three paragraphs about why it's superior to isolate the variable.  Why are you pretending like I didn't?  Was my post unclear?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 10:55:20 PM
Quote
However, in the first five years of legal gay marriage in Massachusetts, the divorce rate fell 21%, compared to 3% in states that disallowed same-sex marriage and reported statistics (n=43).

Where are you getting this from?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 12, 2012, 11:09:05 PM
Where are you getting this from?

I'm getting my national numbers from:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_01.pdf

Which is the CDC numbers for 2009.

State information (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/mardiv.htm#state_tables)

The analysis I was quoting was through 2008, although they now have stats through 2009.  It was just already done for me, and I don't want to run a full analysis until we've pinned down methodology.

What was the marriage rate at the time?

Instead of just randomly looking up statistics, let's figure out a methodology.  It wastes my time researching, and also makes it easy for someone to cherry-pick methodology post hoc after they see a methodology that gets the results they want.  There's no reason not to pick the methodology first.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 12, 2012, 11:35:52 PM
Divorce rate Massachusetts:

2010/2009/2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003/2002/2001/2000

2.5, 2.2, 2.0, 2.3, 2.3, 2.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.5, 2.4, 2.5

I believe they call that 'cherry picking'. You picked 2008 as a 'representative sample'. Why am I not surprised?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-10.pdf

Divorce rate in MA is now higher than it was previously, not lower.

Quote
It wastes my time researching, and also makes it easy for someone to cherry-pick methodology post hoc after they see a methodology that gets the results they want.  There's no reason not to pick the methodology first.

And it wastes my time when you cherrypick data that supports yours. Hey, I'm gonna be honest and follow the argument to its conclusions. That means I'm going to follow up on your claims and check to see what the data you are looking up actually says.

When you do something like this, this really makes me less likely to trust your conclusions. I'm disappointed.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 12:06:17 AM
Here's the marriage rate in MA, over the same period.

5.6, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.9, 6.2, 6.5, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2, 5.8.

So, despite the fact that there has been a 15 percent drop in the overall marriage rate, the divorce rate has jumped up 20 percent.

Divorce rate/Marriage rate =

.446,  .393, .351, .390, .390,  .355,  .338, .446,  .424, .387, .431.

If I go back further, the marraige rate has dropped from 7.1 to about 5.6 today. So in 15 years, marriage has dropped 23 percent.

Divorces/marriage did drop, but have a sharp upward trend. matching the record high in 2002.



Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 12:11:46 AM
2010/2009/2008/2007/2006/2005/2004/2003/2002/2001/2000

2.5, 2.2, 2.0, 2.3, 2.3, 2.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.5, 2.4, 2.5

I believe they call that 'cherry picking'. You picked 2008 as a 'representative sample'. Why am I not surprised?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/divorce_rates_90_95_99-10.pdf

Divorce rate in MA is now higher than it was previously, not lower.

And it wastes my time when you cherrypick data that supports yours. Hey, I'm gonna be honest and follow the argument to its conclusions. That means I'm going to follow up on your claims and check to see what the data you are looking up actually says.

When you do something like this, this really makes me less likely to trust your conclusions. I'm disappointed.

You're wrongly accusing me of impropriety here.  The extent of my "research" so far hasbeen looking at this analysis (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html), which uses the "divorce rate" as divorces over marriages.  The link you gave is another statistic, divorces per 1,000 persons.  The analysis I got that from was also written in 2010, before 2009 statistics were issued.  My point was just to demonstrate that an analysis that isolates the "presence of same-sex marriages" variable is superior to a secondary correlation analysis, and can show different results.  

Have you noticed that I keep asking you to agree on a methodology before we do the analysis?  Now, you're accusing me of: 1) Not looking at the data before I linked to that analysis; and 2) Presenting that analysis as a conclusive argument when it is flawed.

I did not look at the data yet because we haven't chosen a methodology yet.  It is bad to look at the data before choosing a methodology because it could bias me in methodology choice.  I will happily include both means of calculating divorce rate, if you like.

Accusing me of presenting that analysis as a conclusive analysis is also bizarre, considering I called the analysis "fairly weak," and have been trying to get you to agree on a methodology for a more robust argument.  My only point, again, was to demonstrate that an analysis that isolates the "presence of same-sex marriages" variable is superior to a secondary correlation analysis, and can show different results.

(Also, I'll note that an eyeball measurement of the table you linked to, ironically, does not appear to indicate an increase in the divorce rate so calculated between 2004-2008.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 12:18:26 AM
Here's the marriage rate in MA, over the same period.

5.6, 5.6, 5.7, 5.9, 5.9, 6.2, 6.5, 5.6, 5.9, 6.2, 5.8.

So, despite the fact that there has been a 15 percent drop in the overall marriage rate, the divorce rate has jumped up 20 percent.

Divorce rate/Marriage rate =

.446,  .393, .351, .390, .390,  .355,  .338, .446,  .424, .387, .431.

If I go back further, the marraige rate has dropped from 7.1 to about 5.6 today. So in 15 years, marriage has dropped 23 percent.

Divorces/marriage did drop, but have a sharp upward trend. matching the record high in 2002.

You are dividing marriages in a given year over divorces in a given year, which means you're dealing two highly volatile numbers (just look at the variance on this table.)  It would be best to perform this analysis including other states to reduce the volatility, and maybe use less volatile statistic (like marriages over population, divorces over marriages, divorces over population) and combine years into periods (e.g., "post-gay marriage" and "pre-gay marriage") or something, to mitigate these problems.

Which is exactly why I want us to agree to a methodology before we jump into these numbers; especially dealing with such volatile numbers (seriously, look at the variance on those tables), it is easy to shoehorn data into hypotheses and find trends that don't actually exist (which is why the other, non-gay-marrying states can function as convenient controls!)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 12:20:54 AM
I believe the 2008 MA for divorces/1000 numbers are the lowest divorce rate every recorded in any state, over the entire history of the US.

Quote
Accusing me of presenting that analysis as a conclusive analysis is also bizarre, considering I called the analysis "fairly weak," and have been trying to get you to agree on a methodology for a more robust argument.  My only point, again, was to demonstrate that an analysis that isolates the "presence of same-sex marriages" variable is superior to a secondary correlation analysis, and can show different results.

The only patterns I'm seeing here, are a gradual erosion of marriage rates (1,2 percent a year) in MA, and divorce rates bouncing up and down, but significantly higher now than previous, with a long term increase.

Does this analysis of the MA data strike you as correct? That way you can save some time.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 12:23:19 AM
Quote
Which is exactly why I want us to agree to a methodology before we jump into these numbers; especially dealing with such volatile numbers (seriously, look at the variance on those tables), it is easy to shoehorn data into hypotheses and find trends that don't actually exist (which is why the other, non-gay-marrying states can function as convenient controls!)

Agreed. I'm just doing quick and dirty here. I don't believe I've actually drawn any conclusions from these numbers...

Which states do you think would make good controls? How about Alabama, Minnesota, Arizona and Pennsylvania?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 12:25:19 AM
bah, but I don't want to do a quick-and-dirty, because once I've seen these numbers, I can't un-see them before I do a formal analysis.  It poisons my decisionmaking abilities.

But whatever...if we have to do this before agreeing on a methodology, let me check the post-gay vs. pre-gay changes for Massachusetts versus the other states.  Hold on.

edit: Uh, also I think we can use all of the states as controls.  Why not?  I've already converted both tables into an Excel document.  I don't know what's so special about those states.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 12:26:54 AM
also, I just dropped a barbell on my foot so this may be a bit longer before I complete this than I expected.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 13, 2012, 12:30:35 AM
The left apparently needs a new punching bag now that Bush is out of office. They tried beating up Sarah Palin and it didn't work in 2010. Now it's Santorum who is only an idle candidate at this point.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 12:31:31 AM
Quote
I don't know what's so special about those states.

Absolutely nothing.

Quote
also, I just dropped a barbell on my foot so this may be a bit longer before I complete this than I expected.

Oh damn. Hope you're alright.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 12:33:40 AM
It was actually a dumbbell*, and I didn't need feeling in that toe anyway, so we're back on.  Calculating now.

Edit: And thanks, I'm fine, just a little bleeding


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 13, 2012, 12:33:47 AM
Quote
I don't know what's so special about those states.

Absolutely nothing.

Quote
also, I just dropped a barbell on my foot so this may be a bit longer before I complete this than I expected.

Oh damn. Hope you're alright.

You still haven't told me your favorite star wars movie.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 12:39:19 AM
A New Hope.

I'm an Alec Guinness Kenobi.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Joe Republic on March 13, 2012, 12:39:26 AM
Alcon, you're a political junkie.  I hoped you've learned your lesson about going anywhere near gym equipment.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Tidewater_Wave on March 13, 2012, 12:41:16 AM
A New Hope.

I'm an Alec Guinness Kenobi.

Mine used to be Return of the Jedi but Revenge of the Sith had some awesome light sabre fighting. I'm an Anakin Skywalker fan.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 12:42:11 AM
You were supposed to bring BALANCE to the Force.

You were the Chosen one!

I just love the character. First time I watched it I really felt that there was a character that gets me.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 12:48:03 AM
Ben, just to make sure you're OK with this methodology and I'm not doing anything dumb (a little distracted by my toe), here's what I'm doing:

Comparing post-2004 vs. pre-2004 marriage and divorce rates [calculated as in the PDF from the CDC] for Massachusetts vs. other states, as well the marriage:divorce ratio.  Determining whether the post-2004 vs. pre-2004 changes were more or less favorable in Massachusetts versus the other states.

Of course, I'm excluding states that did not report every year.

I think the combination of the periods is a necessary evil because one year of Massachusetts data alone would have way too much variance potential.

Sound good?  (Still working on importing the data; states with spaces in their name screwed it up)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 12:51:59 AM
Quote
Comparing post-2004 vs. pre-2004 marriage and divorce rates [calculated as in the PDF from the CDC] for Massachusetts vs. other states, as well the marriage:divorce ratio.  Determining whether the post-2004 vs. pre-2004 changes were more or less favorable in Massachusetts versus the other states.

Of course, I'm excluding states that did not report every year.

I think the combination of the periods is a necessary evil because one year of Massachusetts data alone would have way too much variance potential.

Sound good?  (Still working on importing the data; states with spaces in their name screwed it up)

Is it possible to do it year by year? We can adjust for the variance.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 12:56:42 AM
Quote
Comparing post-2004 vs. pre-2004 marriage and divorce rates [calculated as in the PDF from the CDC] for Massachusetts vs. other states, as well the marriage:divorce ratio.  Determining whether the post-2004 vs. pre-2004 changes were more or less favorable in Massachusetts versus the other states.

Of course, I'm excluding states that did not report every year.

I think the combination of the periods is a necessary evil because one year of Massachusetts data alone would have way too much variance potential.

Sound good?  (Still working on importing the data; states with spaces in their name screwed it up)

Is it possible to do it year by year? We can adjust for the variance.

To detect a trend?  We can adjust for the variance outside of Massachusetts, but unfortunately there's no way to do that with Massachusetts since that's n=1.  Unless I'm really missing some clever statistical trick here.

Maybe you can explain what you're worried will be missed with the method I suggested, and then I can try to figure something out?  If not, are you OK with the methodology I suggested?  (It's still way better than just a secondary correlation, obviously.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 01:02:45 AM
It's a more neutral approach. Rather then making 2004 'special', we assign equal value to all years.

Your approach is more clumpy, mine less so. More data points = less variance.

Yes, trendlines are really handy.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 01:15:32 AM
It's a more neurtral approach. Rather then making 2004 'special', we assign equal value to all years.

Your approach is more clumpy, mine less so. More data points = less variance.

Err, I'm using all the data points, just combining them into an average for pre- and post-2004.  I'm using all data points; I'm just averaging out so we minimize Massachusetts' variance.  It is "clumpy," but the variance is the same as the trendline method you suggest before (except, in the trendline method, you're dealing with % change instead of raw average, so natural variances appear larger.)  Make sense?

Combining years with high-variance statistics is a way, way accepted method.  I'm not pulling anything on you here.  So, ready for me to run with it?  (no pressure.)


Trendlines are fantastic, but in a data set with so much variance, if I plot the trendline for Massachuestts and compare it to the rest of the states, Massachusetts is going to have unusually high variance since it's n=1 and the other sample is n=>30.

Tell you what: I'll create a trendline for each state individually, and then compare the slopes of the trendlines to other states vs. Massachusetts.  If we're seeing lots of wacky, slopey lines, like I suspect might happen, we'll trash it.  If Massachusetts stands out on the bad side and isn't accompanied by more than a few other states, that's not particularly good evidence (again, variance issues) but it's worth looking at if it isn't the only method of analysis.

I'm on slightly shakier statistical ground with the trendlines, but I think Excel's CORRELATION function should work fine for those purposes.  Sound good?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 01:20:01 AM
Quote
Combining years with high-variance statistics is a way, way accepted method.  I'm not pulling anything on you here.  So, ready for me to run with it?

Not saying it isn't, or that you are pulling something shady


Quote
I'll create a trendline for each state individually, and then compare the slopes of the trendlines to other states vs. Massachusetts.  If we're seeing lots of wacky, slopey lines, like I suspect might happen, we'll trash it.  If Massachusetts stands out on the bad side and isn't accompanied by more than a few other states, that's not particularly good evidence (again, variance issues) but it's worth looking at if it isn't the only method of analysis.

This is how I would do it if I were doing it myself, and then overlay them on top of each other. :)

This would be fantastic.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 01:22:03 AM
Alcon, let me guess - you trained in social sciences?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 01:36:22 AM
But, understanding that we have a disagreement on the relative virtues of the first versus second method, are you ready for me to run the first method?  Although it lacks trendlines, it is certainly the less volatile of the two methods, and we know we won't have to throw it out due to appearance of noise.  If you don't have any suggested tweaks, shall I run it?

(Why I think this less-volatile method is better: Even if this method does not use trendlines, it would still include any "hit" marriage took in MA even if the effect was delayed...so even under the delayed-effect hypothesis, the "hit" would show up in the less-volatile method's numbers.  That, combined with the lesser volatility, is why I'll argue it's the superior method.)

Alcon, let me guess - you trained in social sciences?

My major is in Political Science but it's more humanities-focused.  This is just the method of analyzing public policy that makes most sense to me.  It actually involves real-world application (unlike some more straightforward, concrete stats stuff) and it isn't made-up bullsh**t (unlike a lot of policy argumentation.)  I think stats + ethical theory is the best hope for making policy in a way that doesn't just exclusively involve knee-jerk/ideology-driven power-plays.

What's your field of study?  (Not to be presumptuous, but the way you write suggests you have some formal education in this or something similar-ish)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 01:45:27 AM
Well, my stats training is in Physics.

Feel free to run the analysis with the years together if we can do both of them.

I'm expecting that with the other method that we'll see convergence.



Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 01:46:23 AM
Ahh, cool :) Yeah, same vocabulary, very different sort of Stats (from what I've gathered)

Here's the low-variance "post vs. pre" method:

Change in divorce rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -9.8%
United States: -13.4%
Positive change (Massachusetts minus U.S.): -3.6%

Change in marriage rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -7.4%
United States: -17.6%
Positive change (Massachusetts versus U.S.): +10.2%

Change in marriage:divorce ratio, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: +2.7%
United States: -3.9%
Positive change (Massachuestts versus U.S.): +6.6%

Yep, so:  Massachusetts's decline in divorce rate was a bit lower than the U.S.'s between these two periods.  However, Massachusetts saw much less of a decline in the marriage rate than the U.S. did.  Consequentially, Massachusetts actually saw an increase in marriages-per-divorce between the two periods (+2.7%) while the other states saw an average decline (-3.9%).

It's a small difference (these are percents of decimals), but using this measurement of divorce and marriage rates, Massachusetts pretty clearly fared better than the rest of the U.S. overall after legalizing gay marriage.  Massachusetts "wins" this method.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 01:58:36 AM
Quote
Yep, so:  Massachusetts's decline in divorce rate was a bit lower than the U.S.'s between these two periods.  However, Massachusetts saw much less of a decline in the marriage rate than the U.S. did.  Consequentially, Massachusetts actually saw an increase in marriages-per-divorce between the two periods (+2.7%) while the other states saw an average decline (-3.9%).

Ok, now what would happen if you toss out the high MA and the low MA numbers? The US numbers should be ok. Tossing out high low is how we 'correct' for the variance in the MA numbers.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 02:02:03 AM
So, how do you want to do the trendline bit?  You're right that it's best to avoid using one year as a big data point, so I'm reluctant to just set 2003 or 2004 as year 0.  How about I average 1999-2003 and set that as year 0, make 2004 year 1, 2005 year 2, and so on?  That creates a model that is extremely sensitive to trends post-2003, for better or for worse, but mitigates the variance problem a little.

I'm using the marriage:divorce ratio for this, if that's cool.  That seems like the best metric, although I suppose I can also use (marriage rate-divorce rate).  Whichever you like...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 02:06:14 AM
Quote
Yep, so:  Massachusetts's decline in divorce rate was a bit lower than the U.S.'s between these two periods.  However, Massachusetts saw much less of a decline in the marriage rate than the U.S. did.  Consequentially, Massachusetts actually saw an increase in marriages-per-divorce between the two periods (+2.7%) while the other states saw an average decline (-3.9%).

Ok, now what would happen if you toss out the high MA and the low MA numbers? The US numbers should be ok. Tossing out high low is how we 'correct' for the variance in the MA numbers.

Well, that's how you control for outliers, but it jacks up the variance since you reduce the number of years from 7 to 5.  Mixed blessing...and the MA "outliers" are pretty tame compared to many of the smaller states.

But pretty much nothing happens:

Change in divorce rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -9.9%
United States: -13.4%
Positive change (Massachusetts minus U.S.): -3.5%

Change in marriage rate, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: -8.2%
United States: -17.6%
Positive change (Massachusetts versus U.S.): +9.4%

Change in marriage:divorce ratio, post-2004 period versus pre-2004 period
Massachusetts: +1.8%
United States: -3.9%
Positive change (Massachuestts versus U.S.): +5.7%

There's just no rational statistical method where MA doesn't fare better post-2004 than the other states.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 02:07:16 AM
I was thinking about this. It might be more useful to chart the slopes rather than the absolute values, and then plot all the slopes of all 50 states on top of them.

That should give us a pretty good approximation as to what is going on with each states. It should show up as to whether or not MA is an outlier.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 02:09:34 AM
Quote
There's just no rational statistical method where MA doesn't fare better post-2004 than the other states.

Now we have a much more reliable sample. We haven't gotten to the point yet where we can say that this isn't due to random factors.

What's the standard deviation of the 100 averages (pre + post)?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 02:18:08 AM
I was thinking about this. It might be more useful to chart the slopes rather than the absolute values, and then plot all the slopes of all 50 states on top of them.

That should give us a pretty good approximation as to what is going on with each states. It should show up as to whether or not MA is an outlier.

Yep, that's what I was planning to do.  I just need to know the timeframe and the statistic to chart, like I asked above.

(Also, like I alluded to previously, I excluded 8 states that have years missing...shouldn't matter, but just want to be transparent.)

Quote
There's just no rational statistical method where MA doesn't fare better post-2004 than the other states.

Now we have a much more reliable sample. We haven't gotten to the point yet where we can say that this isn't due to random factors.

What's the standard deviation of the 100 averages (pre + post)?

I honestly think this is all probably noise.  I really doubt legalizing gay marriage has enough effect on marriage and divorce rates overall, which are dominated by heterosexuals, to outpace the effect of noise.

The Excel STDEV function is screwy, but it looks like it's 7.6%.

Mean is -3.9%.

Range is +17.0% (Iowa) to -20.3% (Nevada)

Distribution looks a lot like a bell curve, with Massachusetts on the happy side of the middle (14th of 43.)

I'd never suggest that this is anything like conclusive evidence that gay marriage is good for "marital health" of states, but this metric says it's much likelier to be good than bad, if it's either.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 02:20:09 AM
No need to do the other analysis. We're getting good data here. If it's a bell curve, I'm happy with it.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 02:23:46 AM
Quote
I'd never suggest that this is anything like conclusive evidence that gay marriage is good for "marital health" of states, but this metric says it's much likelier to be good than bad, if it's either.

That's just about what we'd expect from a random sample. Sorry. There's nothing to indicate that there's any structural reason for the change beyond noise.

I thought it might be Iowa + Nevada. Interesting.

Thanks for doing all this. Sorry we got nothing definitive out of it.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 02:33:13 AM
All right.

For what it's worth, I did a simple CORRELATION (correlation between year and the change in the marriage:divorce ratio) in Excel, which would get about the same result as the slope method.  Again, Massachusetts appears to be on the happier side of the middle of the pack, 20th of 43.  The marriage:divorce ratio didn't fare particularly well during this period, which isn't a big surprise with the economic downturn.  However, only 3 states reached statistically significant downward correlations -- Virginia, Wisconsin and Arkansas.  All three of these states banned gay marriage during this period although I'm not reading much of anything into that.

So, where are we at with this debate?  Before, you were saying the "broken window" hypothesis is probabilistic based on secondary correlations.  Now, we've isolated the variable as well as we can.  I did one test that is high-variance, high-trend-sensitivity; I did another that is mid-variance, mid-trend-sensitivity.  Both of these are direct, instead of secondary correlations.  They both indicate that the state with gay marriage (Massachusetts) has fared better in marital health by all metrics than states without gay marriage.  Eyeballing these numbers, it appears states that banned gay marriage also fared worse than those that didn't.  In fact, I bet if I run a correlation between gay marriage opposition and marital health deterioration between this period, it might reach statistical significance.

No matter, though.  The point is:

1. There's no evidence that gay marriage deteriorated the "marital health" of Massachusetts versus the states without gay marriage.

2. If anything, Massachusetts' "marital health" relatively improved.

3. This new evidence is more direct than the data you were using to bolster the "broken window" hypothesis, which you made the empirical cornerstone of your argument.

Are you ready to reevaluate?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 02:44:02 AM
Interesting. Wisconsin, Virginia and Arkansas. Not the ones I would have expected to see. 

Quote
They both indicate that the state with gay marriage (Massachusetts) has fared better in marital health by all metrics than states without gay marriage.

Yes, but we've also shown that this isn't statistically significant.

Quote
Are you ready to reevaluate?

Well, what I'm seeing is that marriage rates in general are declining across America. This reinforces my opinion (and Santorum's), that this is an overarching negative trend. 

Two, the rise in the ratio of marriage/divorce that we see in MA seems to be ephemeral. It took the lowest divorce rates recorded for any state in the US to bring that number to about par for the US. If we see another year like the last one, I suspect that MA will actually trend negative in that ratio.

So no, there's nothing here that would convince me to re-evaluate my position.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 02:45:19 AM
Maybe this could be published somewhere? I'm sure someone would be interested in this.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 02:55:51 AM
??? :(

...Broken window, yeah sure maybe man.  But...you don't see anything here that suggests that you lack empirical evidence for your assertion that The Gays are contributing to that "broken" window?  That was...the entire point of this exercise.

How many states have to legalize gay marriage and then perform better-than-average in "marital health" trends before you change your mind on gay marriage...?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 03:09:36 AM
Quote
But...you don't see anything here that suggests that you lack empirical evidence for your assertion that The Gays are contributing to that "broken" window?  That was...the entire point of this exercise.

If you showed me marriage rates going up - I'd see things differently. This was actually a really depressing study.
 
Quote
How many states have to legalize gay marriage and then perform better-than-average in "marital health" trends before you change your mind on gay marriage...?

Statistically significant is the point here. I'm not sure why I should give weight to something that hasn't been shown to be statistically significant. Like I said, the best roll of the dice in 2006 still doesn't pull it up to the point where it would be statistically significant.

I think we can conclude from here on that the picture isn't going to improve.

Honestly, I thought your conclusion was rubbish as soon as I saw the actual data series for MA. That pretty much sealed it for me. Sorry.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 03:26:35 AM
Wow, dude.

The only way that you can accept gay marriage is if it reverses, all by itself, the downward trend in "marital health"?

You don't even care if the variable "presence of gay marriage" seems to have no negative effect on "marital health"?  Because Massachusett's superior "marital health" trend was unarguably probabilistic, statistically significant in most interpretations and a direct, not secondary, correlation.  It's better, harder evidence than you were previously using to ground your argument...and now suddenly you're discounting it?  When before you were all "they may be indirect, man, but look at the empirics"?  Maybe I misunderstand something.  If not, how the hell can you defend that...?

But, yeah, go ahead and explain to me what conclusion I made that's "rubbish."  This will be interesting.

sorry indeed...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Comrade Funk on March 13, 2012, 08:44:54 AM
Yes he was. He was just one of the biggest weasels in history.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 02:31:23 PM
Quote
The only way that you can accept gay marriage is if it reverses, all by itself, the downward trend in "marital health"?

That, or it shows to be statistically significant in this survey here. It wasn't, so yeah, I'm unconvinced that this is anything more than noise. You said it so yourself.

Quote
Because Massachusett's superior "marital health" trend was unarguably probabilistic, statistically significant

Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin.

Sorry, no. It's not statistically significant. It's about 1 standard deviation off the norm, and when you've got 50 states, and MA is about at the 1/3rd level, yeah, ok.

Given a truly random sample, how many would we expect to see at 1 standard deviation? 1/3rd? Gosh, that was easy.

Even if this were statistically significant, you would have to explain why the other 20 or so states with a greater improvement than MA are significant as well, and account for MA.

See what I'm saying here? That it isn't statistically significant just says, ok, so it's up, but it's not up enough to make a difference from what we could see randomly.

You see this all the time. I was asked to do a survey of boy/girl ratios at birth. In the UK you'll see some isolated high ratios, but when you have that many samples, you would expect to see outliers at a specific rate. Which is what we see here.

I bet if we made the cutoff '07 this behaviour disappears.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 02:56:37 PM
That, or it shows to be statistically significant in this survey here. It wasn't, so yeah, I'm unconvinced that this is anything more than noise. You said it so yourself.

That's the same thing!  You're believing your hypothesis because of a secondary correlation, when isolating the variable indicates that there's no evidence that gay marriage is the explanatory variable!  How does that work?  My entire point was that the evidence for your hypothesis sucks, and your presumed explanatory variable (presence of gay marriage contributing to a "broken window") is unsubstantiated when you isolate the variable.  Basically, you've set up a mode of analysis where you can stake a causal hypothesis and the only way to reject it is to prove that the subject of the causal agent (gay marriage) is so strong it actually reverses all other trends (deceased "marital health"), not just that there's no evidence it contributes to those trends when you isolate the hypothesized causal agent.  How can this make any sense to you?  How can you care about the secondary correlation, but not about isolating the variable you're trying to test for?  That is not how proving a hypothesis works in any branch of science because it is totally irrational.

Re: statistical significance: I was referring to the pre- vs. post-2004 change of MA vs. other states as being statistically significant, but I may have run the test wrong.  But are you accusing me of intentionally mis-running a statistical significance test?  Does that match my behavior in this thread at all?  It's like you've reverted to hackery once I ran this analysis ???  (Also, again, statistical significance is arbitrary.  94% certainty is still pretty damn likely, and is again, superior to your secondary correlation which can't even be tested for statistical significance but yet you accept your hypothesis as gospel truth anyway wtf.)

Either I'm misunderstanding it (I don't think so) or your methodology of analysis is almost completely illogical.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 03:05:30 PM
Seriously, not to beat up on you, but I can't believe you're accusing me of arguing to your own conclusions, when your mode of analysis is built upon arbitrarily accepting objectively inferior evidence that matches your conclusion (secondary correlation with no statistical significance test possible) and arbitrarily accepting hypotheses until you are 95% confident that they're untrue...

Would you actually apply this mode of analysis to anything in your discipline?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 13, 2012, 05:47:44 PM
How are we coming with the empirical evidence?  What is the reader's digest version? I have a little question. Why are hetero families in the most disarray where the specter of gay marriage is the least visible and distracting, or whatever the theory is?  I mean, how many gays are running around Mississippi agitating for gay marriage?  And why are black families in the most disarray?  I mean how much do most of those folks think about gay marriage at all, or even gays, except to disdain them perhaps?  They should be the least susceptible to the family toxic gay influence no?  Sorry to butt in.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 05:58:22 PM
How are we coming with the empirical evidence?  What is the reader's digest version? I have a little question. Why are hetero families in the most disarray where the specter of gay marriage is the least visible and distracting, or whatever the theory is?  I mean, how many gays are running around Mississippi agitating for gay marriage?  And why are black families in the most disarray?  I mean how much do most of those folks think about gay marriage at all, or even gays, except to disdain them perhaps?  They should be the least susceptible to the family toxic gay influence no?  Sorry to butt in.

Ben's hypothesis is that gay marriage contributes to a "broken window effect" that is responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage in recent years.

His evidence is that "marital health" (divorce and marriage statistics) have not fared well nationally since gay marriage became legalized in Massachusetts and became a viable national issue.

I attempt to isolate the effect of gay marriage by comparing the "marital health" statistics in Massachusetts versus in the nation.  They failed to substantiate the hypothesis; although there is high variance, Massachusetts fared better by all metrics than the nation as a whole.

After I made a best-faith effort to isolate this variable and it did not substantiate his hypothesis (the opposite, if anything), he complained that Massachusetts' better performance could be statistical noise.

Basically, he's accepted the hypothesis that gay marriage contributes to the "broken window" of marriage based on a secondary correlation ("marital health" continues to decline as gay marriage was legalized.)  He dismisses any attempt to isolate the variable "presence of same-sex marriage" to figure out if it's an explanatory variable, unless it's an explanatory variable in the opposite direction, to statistical significance.

In other words, unless I can prove to statistical significance that gay marriage alone reverses the downward trend in marital health he's presuming that gay marriage contributes to the "broken window."  This is despite the fact that his only evidence for this is the national marital trends, and since he's not even isolating a variable in his analysis, he can't even perform a statistical significance test on that.

Really short version: He's using inferior, more general evidence to justify his hypothesis, and then arbitrarily rejecting more precise evidence.  It's absolute crap, and I don't really believe anyone sees reality that way unless they're arguing to conclusions.

Sorry, that's a little complicated and wordy, but we're talking about hypotheses, statistical analysis results, and statistical analysis methods at the same time, which tends to make for long sentences :P


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2012, 05:59:44 PM
But why bother when he's so clearly just a cretinous fyckwit?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 06:12:21 PM
But why bother when he's so clearly just a cretinous fyckwit?

I don't think he is, I'm just dumbfounded


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 13, 2012, 07:51:31 PM
When you boys are done having fun, you might find some "real" explanations for the disheveled state of the family unit in this book (http://www.randomhouse.com/book/119020/coming-apart-by-charles-murray). And you know what? I listened to Charles Murray in an hour interview with Charlie Rose, and he never mentioned the word "gay" once. Even odder, among the most gay friendly cohort, the upper middle class, family cohesion is almost as strong as it has even been.  Now among more down market whites, it is another story.
 
Well actually, Murray did mention gays, and said he came around to supporting gay marriage, because his gay married/unioned friends that he knew seemed to have very stable and loving relationships, and so, well, it was time to just acknowledge the "validity" of their unions, just like anyone else's. And Murray is a "conservative," who got a lot of heat back when over his Beyond the Bell Curve book. Personal experience counts, even with eggheads. Who knew?

Cheers.

()


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: freepcrusher on March 13, 2012, 08:26:31 PM
When you boys are done having fun, you might find some "real" explanations for the disheveled state of the family unit in this book (http://www.randomhouse.com/book/119020/coming-apart-by-charles-murray). And you know what? I listened to Charles Murray in an hour interview with Charlie Rose, and he never mentioned the word "gay" once. Even odder, among the most gay friendly cohort, the upper middle class, family cohesion is almost as strong as it has even been.  Now among more down market whites, it is another story.
 
Well actually, Murray did mention gays, and said he came around to supporting gay marriage, because his gay married/unioned friends that he knew seemed to have very stable and loving relationships, and so, well, it was time to just acknowledge the "validity" of their unions, just like anyone else's. And Murray is a "conservative," who got a lot of heat back when over his Beyond the Bell Curve book. Personal experience counts, even with eggheads. Who knew?

Cheers.

()

this is a book I'm asking for my birthday. As a Californian I think this book explains the huge intraracial differences between whites in different parts of the state. There's a huge cultural difference from a white person living in Oildale and one in Tarzana.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Sam Spade on March 13, 2012, 10:15:08 PM
I'll read the book, but The Bell Curve was a poorly written and researched piece of dogma, and Charles Murray has proven time and time again that he is simply not at the top strata of intelligence.

At any rate, stuff like this is why Santorum pisses off so many people, including me.  Simply blaming one thing for causing another thing, when the actual causes are much more diverse and intertwined is the type of simplistic thinking that has degraded our culture and made our economy reliant on a massive government-coordinated ponzi scheme to begin with.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 11:12:34 PM
Quote
Ben's hypothesis is that gay marriage contributes to a "broken window effect" that is responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage in recent years.

Again, you've misunderstood.

Gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause. The overall decline of marriage predates gay marriage and that decline is precipitating demand for gay marriage.

Demonstrating to me, quite objectively, that marriage has undergone substantial decline in the US, in all 50 states isn't going to deter someone from this hypothesis, quite the contrary. It is going to reinforce the connection between marriage declines leading towards demand for gay marriage.

Now, I'm happy you are attempting to argue my thesis, but please get it right. Gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 13, 2012, 11:35:45 PM
Quote
Ben's hypothesis is that gay marriage contributes to a "broken window effect" that is responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage in recent years.

Again, you've misunderstood.

Gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause. The overall decline of marriage predates gay marriage and that decline is precipitating demand for gay marriage.

Demonstrating to me, quite objectively, that marriage has undergone substantial decline in the US, in all 50 states isn't going to deter someone from this hypothesis, quite the contrary. It is going to reinforce the connection between marriage declines leading towards demand for gay marriage.

Now, I'm happy you are attempting to argue my thesis, but please get it right. Gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause.

OK, well, that's different.  So, does gay marriage, or does it not, cause negative consequences for "marital health" -- regardless of whether it's symptomatic?

If not, why prohibit it?

Hey, because if gay marriage makes people happy and doesn't damage the institution of marriage, best policy symptom evar!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 13, 2012, 11:47:26 PM
Quote
So, does gay marriage, or does it not, cause negative consequences for "marital health" -- regardless of whether it's symptomatic?

Continued declines indicate that gay marriage does nothing to help the situation.

Quote
If not, why prohibit it?

Again, we've dealt with this argument before. Why permit it? What benefit does it bring?

Quote
Hey, because if gay marriage makes people happy

So would removing restrictions on consanguinity.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2012, 01:16:52 AM
Oh, OK, so yes, gay marriage would need to single-handedly reverse the downward trend in "marital health" for you to accept it.  Yes?  No other way?

Also, I'm curious about whether you'd have applied this same analytical standard to interracial marriage.

(I'm not just speed-replying; I'm trying to understand your position better before I respond to it.  I already have pretty strenuous objections -- not the least of which is that you're failing to respond to my critique of your double standard of analysis -- but I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse here.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2012, 07:31:23 PM
bump...because, even after thinking about it pretty thoroughly today, this rationale still seems completely intractable/bewildering to me.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 07:40:29 PM
Quote
Oh, OK, so yes, gay marriage would need to single-handedly reverse the downward trend in "marital health" for you to accept it.  Yes?  No other way?

To disprove the thesis that gay marriage is a symptom of marriage declines, yes, this is what it would require.

Quote
Also, I'm curious about whether you'd have applied this same analytical standard to interracial marriage.

Unless your thesis is that the two are somehow related, I'm not sure what this non sequitor has to do with the topic at hand.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 07:44:04 PM
Quote
because, even after thinking about it pretty thoroughly today, this rationale still seems completely intractable/bewildering to me.

You seem to be treating this like it's a referendum on gay marriage. That's why you aren't understanding the thesis.

The thesis:

Gay marriage is a symptom of marriage declining in America.

Your proof:

Marriage declines in America followed up by gay marriage.

You argument seems to be:

Massachusetts has a statisically insignificant slowing of the decline of marriage, ergo gay marriage is a public good and ought to be instituted across america.

What you seem to think my argument is:

Gay marriage is bad because it causes marriage decline.

If I've misunderstood you, let me know.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2012, 08:11:43 PM
(You may want to read all of this post before replying, because the last part may render the first two questions moot)

To disprove the thesis that gay marriage is a symptom of marriage declines, yes, this is what it would require.

How could that be disproved?  A statistical analysis of correlation between decline in "marital health" and increased support for gay marriage?  As I'm disputing the import of this analysis below, this is mostly out of curiosity.

Unless your thesis is that the two are somehow related, I'm not sure what this non sequitor has to do with the topic at hand.

Say some dude makes an honest argument that marrying within race is an important social norm, for whatever reason.  It doesn't matter; he claims that interracial marriage is symptomatic of the decline of social norms and traditional values that are driving marriage rates down.  He points to the same correlations you look at, and charts out the increase in support of interracial marriage and decline in "marital health."  How do you respond to him on this?

You seem to be treating this like it's a referendum on gay marriage. That's why you aren't understanding the thesis.

The thesis:

Gay marriage is a symptom of marriage declining in America.

Your proof:

Marriage declines in America followed up by gay marriage.

You argument seems to be:

Massachusetts has a statisically insignificant slowing of the decline of marriage, ergo gay marriage is a public good and ought to be instituted across america.

What you seem to think my argument is:

Gay marriage is bad because it causes marriage decline.

If I've misunderstood you, let me know.

I guess I was confused because I don't understand how "gay marriage is a symptom of bad thing x" is an argument against gay marriage unless you're arguing that gay marriage exacerbates thing x.  Actually, you know why I was confused?  Because you posted this at the start of our exchange (emphasis added):

Gay marriage weakens the natural family, because you're arguing that 'sex doesn't matter', and that there is no such thing as 'men' or 'women' that would actually be relevant to marriage.

If gay marriage is more likely to lead to relationships outside of marriage, then gay marriage is going to hurt the economy as it forms unstable unions that are more likely to break up as well as discouraging marriage altogether.

That's what Santorum is getting at. It makes sense, but you have to have some of the background to understand the premisses.

My "misinterpretation" of your position here seems reasonable to me, considering that post is where our exchange started. ???

My argument isn't "Massachusetts has a statisically insignificant slowing of the decline of marriage, ergo gay marriage is a public good [sic] and ought to be instituted across America."  I was just presuming that you were trying to show gay marriage as a causal agent of something bad because that's what the quoted portion above is about.  People generally oppose gay marriage on the basis that it will...do bad things.  That's the idea I was getting from your posts.

So, let's just cut to the chase.  I'm here to try to change your mind on a public policy based on my opinion, which is guided by an ethical theory of public policy plus empirical evidence.  Why are you against civil recognition of gay marriages (if you are)?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 14, 2012, 09:20:28 PM
While Alcon goes the philosophical/logical construct route at which he excels so wells, I am going to go the lawyer route, as to which I might excel but which I am more familiar.

Assuming arguendo that gay marriage is a mere "symptom" (I don't get why gay marriage would break out in the context of a heterosexual marriage decline but whatever), and one finds the symptom is not really be that "unpleasant" to society as a whole, why treat the symptom with some palliative, particularly if it has "negative" side effects (it denies gays their equal rights and presumably some degree of happiness for some)? Why don't you get about the business of trying to treat the "cause,"  and just leave gays alone to do their thing? I'm OK, you're OK.

What am I missing here?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 09:41:52 PM
Quote
My "misinterpretation" of your position here seems reasonable to me, considering that post is where our exchange started.

Well, that's the root of the problem.

My argument is not "gay marriage is the cause of the bad stuff". No, gay marriage is the symptom, not the cause. The declines in marriage came first, gay marriage came second. The evidence that you've shown here reinforces this thesis, ergo my comments that to disprove the thesis would require you to show marriage increasing, because that would break the chain.

Quote
I was just presuming that you were trying to show gay marriage as a causal agent of something bad

Well, you're wrong. That's why I posted exactly what the thesis.

Quote
I'm here to try to change your mind on a public policy based on my opinion, which is guided by an ethical theory of public policy plus empirical evidence.  Why are you against civil recognition of gay marriages (if you are)?

Why am I against it? Because I'm Catholic and my faith teaches that homosexuality is sinful. So if you feel it's worth your time to argue with me otherwise, feel free. But don't say I didn't warn you.

As for interracial marriage - nobody chooses to be black (or white, or whatever). People choose to engage in homosexuality. The analogy between the two simply doesn't hold up.

I can't go online and look at your picture and say - hey - you're gay. But I can do the same with you if you are black. That's an important distinction. 


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 09:47:37 PM
Quote
Assuming arguendo that gay marriage is a mere "symptom" (I don't get who gay marriage would break out in the context of heterosexual marriage decline but whatever), and one finds the symptom is not really be that "unpleasant" to society as a whole, why treat the symptom with some palliative, particularly if it has "negative" side effects (it denies gays their equal rights and presumably some degree of happiness for some)? Why don't you get about the business of trying to treat the "cause,"  and just leave gays alone to do their thing? I'm OK, you're OK.

What's the first thing you do when someone you see has fallen down and hurt themselves and appears to need emergency first aid?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 14, 2012, 09:55:59 PM
Quote
Assuming arguendo that gay marriage is a mere "symptom" (I don't get who gay marriage would break out in the context of heterosexual marriage decline but whatever), and one finds the symptom is not really be that "unpleasant" to society as a whole, why treat the symptom with some palliative, particularly if it has "negative" side effects (it denies gays their equal rights and presumably some degree of happiness for some)? Why don't you get about the business of trying to treat the "cause,"  and just leave gays alone to do their thing? I'm OK, you're OK.

What's the first thing you do when someone you see has fallen down and hurt themselves and appears to need emergency first aid?

Married gays, or those who wish to marry, are not in need of your good Samaritan instincts. They are doing just fine. They are not "sick" or "wounded."  If you think they are, for reasons relating to them rather than society at large, that opens up another whole discussion, and yet another Pandora's Box.  Is that where you wish to go next?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 09:57:36 PM
Quote
Married gays, or those who wish to marry, are not in need of your good Samaritan instincts. They are doing just fine. They are not "sick" or "wounded."  If you think they are, for reasons relating to them rather than society at large, that opens up another whole discussion, and yet another Pandora's Box.  Is that where you wish to go next?

Are you here to argue with me or yourself?

IF this is how it's going to be I'm outta here.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
I'll give you another chance here Torie.

Answer the question please.

What's the first thing you do when someone you see has fallen down and hurt themselves and appears to need emergency first aid?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 14, 2012, 09:58:52 PM
Quote
Married gays, or those who wish to marry, are not in need of your good Samaritan instincts. They are doing just fine. They are not "sick" or "wounded."  If you think they are, for reasons relating to them rather than society at large, that opens up another whole discussion, and yet another Pandora's Box.  Is that where you wish to go next?

Are you here to argue with me or yourself?

IF this is how it's going to be I'm outta here.

I thought I was trying to be responsive. If I offended you, that was unintentional.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 14, 2012, 09:59:41 PM
I'll give you another chance here Torie.

Answer the question please.

What's the first thing you do when someone you see has fallen down and hurt themselves and appears to need emergency first aid?

Being a good Samaritan is estimable.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 10:07:54 PM
Quote
Being a good Samaritan is estimable.

You haven't offended me Torie, it's just you've made erroneous assumptions.

Wrong.

The first thing you do, is check and see if the situation is safe. If you get taken out by the same thing that took them out, there's two people who need rescuing.

This is the problem with gay marriage. In order to fix divorce as one of the bigger problems, we've got this log sitting on divorce. That log has to be removed first in order to fix divorce.

This is why I made the point, quite some time ago, is divorce more or less likely to be fixed with gay marriage in place?

All of you to a man ignored the question.

So I rest my case.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 14, 2012, 10:12:33 PM
"Log sitting on divorce?"  I think I will leave this to Alcon. This is too difficult for me. Symptoms, causation, good Samaritan, and now logs. Things seem to be a moving target. I was never a sharpshooter of flying birds. That is not my bag.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 10:16:23 PM
Thanks Torie for the stimulating discussion that was well worth my time.

Appreciate it. We should do it again sometime.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: ajb on March 14, 2012, 10:46:33 PM
Quote
Being a good Samaritan is estimable.

You haven't offended me Torie, it's just you've made erroneous assumptions.

Wrong.

The first thing you do, is check and see if the situation is safe. If you get taken out by the same thing that took them out, there's two people who need rescuing.

This is the problem with gay marriage. In order to fix divorce as one of the bigger problems, we've got this log sitting on divorce. That log has to be removed first in order to fix divorce.

This is why I made the point, quite some time ago, is divorce more or less likely to be fixed with gay marriage in place?

All of you to a man ignored the question.

So I rest my case.

Mind you, why then has the divorce rate been falling for at least the past 20 years, from 4.7 per thousand in 1990, to 3.4 per thousand now? And why does Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rate of all (2.2), far below Arkansas (5.7), West Virginia (5.2), and Oklahoma (4.9)?
The answer, of course, is that the average age at marriage has been going up across the country, and has gone up faster in MA than it has in AR/WV/OK.
But is the increase in average age at marriage actually such a bad thing, especially if it leads to fewer divorces? Couldn't we argue that sometimes in the past people got married too soon and too lightly, and that waiting to get married is a sign that people now respect the institution of marriage more than they used to?

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0133.pdf


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 11:22:51 PM
Quote
Mind you, why then has the divorce rate been falling for at least the past 20 years, from 4.7 per thousand in 1990, to 3.4 per thousand now?

It's been falling for longer than this actually. It's mostly due to no-fault divorce and some to demographic factors (fewer people of marriagable age), waiting longer for marriage, education factors, etc.

Quote
And why does Massachusetts have the lowest divorce rate of all (2.2), far below Arkansas (5.7), West Virginia (5.2), and Oklahoma (4.9)?

MA has very low marriage rates. Fewer people get married, even fewer get divorced. MA was a leader in the decline, so it's not surprising that they would be a leader in other ways.

Quote
But is the increase in average age at marriage actually such a bad thing

It's not just the average age of marriage - fewer people are choosing to get married. If you look at the percentages, it's rather drastic.

Again, this gets back to some of the basics which we should be arguing about. One of Santorum's arguments, and a big part of it is that marriage is generally a huge benefit to people. Sure for some it's not, but in general, it's the single most reliable indicator of poverty, is whether someone is or is not married. 

Quote
especially if it leads to fewer divorces?

Not really, no. It's better off to get married and stay married, when the alternative is not to get married at all.

Quote
Couldn't we argue that sometimes in the past people got married too soon and too lightly, and that waiting to get married is a sign that people now respect the institution of marriage more than they used to?

Not when the absolute numbers of those getting married has dropped so dramatically.

Again, this isn't a recent phenomenon, it's been going on for a long time.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2012, 11:25:21 PM
Why am I against it? Because I'm Catholic and my faith teaches that homosexuality is sinful. So if you feel it's worth your time to argue with me otherwise, feel free. But don't say I didn't warn you.

Theoretical question:  Even if gay marriage was empirically proven to bolster the economy, and marriage, and whatever, would you still unconditionally oppose civil recognition because your faith disagrees with it?

As for interracial marriage - nobody chooses to be black (or white, or whatever). People choose to engage in homosexuality. The analogy between the two simply doesn't hold up.

People...choose to engage in interracial relationships too.  I'm not sure how you think that breaks down the analogy.  There are distinctions, but that's not one of them.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 14, 2012, 11:36:20 PM
Quote
Theoretical question:  Even if gay marriage was empirically proven to bolster the economy, and marriage, and whatever, would you still unconditionally oppose civil recognition because your faith disagrees with it?

There's two questions going on here -

One, do I believe that what I believe ought to be state policy;

Two, do I believe that marriage is something that ought to be regulated by the state.

We haven't really touched either one of them.

No - I wouldn't change my mind on gay marriage based on this evidence. Which is kind of why I specified what the question we were examining beforehand was not about whether I supported gay marriage or not.

That's really not the question on the table, nor really a productive use of your time. I'm sorry if you feel I've mislead you, but I thought I was pretty clear. I see now that I obviously was not.

Quote
People...choose to engage in interracial relationships too.  I'm not sure how you think that breaks down the analogy.  There are distinctions, but that's not one of them.

Are you saying that you believe that homosexuality is a choice?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 14, 2012, 11:56:48 PM
I'm still wondering on how you distinguish the interracial issue using your method of analysis, but whatever.

I'm also wondering why you thought the portion I quoted wouldn't lead me to the assumption about your argument I made.  Was I not paraphrasing what you said?

Do you oppose civil recognition of gay marriage (that allows churches to refuse to marry gays)?

Your last post kind of confused me because of the weird quote-copying.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 12:10:30 AM
Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Joe Republic on March 15, 2012, 12:13:25 AM
BK, could you kindly use the quote function in the usual manner, please?  It's not essential to the casual observer for reading back-and-forth conversations, but it certainly helps.  Thanks.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 12:16:06 AM
Well I'm unfamiliar with the norms here.

What is the usual fashion?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2012, 12:22:29 AM
Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

I tend to think people have strong biological predispositions, although those can be socialized and conditioned to an extent.  I think that's true of both heterosexuality and homosexuality.  Homosexual acts are a choice, like any sex act.

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did? :\


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Joe Republic on March 15, 2012, 12:24:44 AM
Well I'm unfamiliar with the norms here.

What is the usual fashion?

Click the () button in the post that you want to reply to.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 12:36:17 AM
Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did? :\

Key words here - "I seemed". This is why I clarified myself. You had the wrong perception.

Now as for this point here, thank you for clarifying yourself. So you think we have strong predispositions that can be controlled. Ok.

Race is different, far different from this. This is why what applies to race cannot be applied to homosexuality. You can't suddenly stop being black, white, whatever. But you can change your habits and your desires.

This is a part of marriage - giving up things that you may have once enjoyed for other benefits inside a family. We restrict choices in marriage. Curtail behaviours that can be destructive out of concern for our partners and our family.

See where I'm going with this?

It comes back to the basic question - you are not what you do. What you do does not change who you are as a person.

I'm going to stop here. Get your reaction to all this.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 12:37:34 AM
Apologies Joe. I'm not used to such swanky forums, I'm used to the HTML....


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: pbrower2a on March 15, 2012, 01:00:17 AM
Quote
So, does gay marriage, or does it not, cause negative consequences for "marital health" -- regardless of whether it's symptomatic?

Continued declines indicate that gay marriage does nothing to help the situation.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. The only threat of homosexuality to a "straight" family is if the marriage is already shaky. Heterosexual challenges like the desire to have someone resembling the Playmate of the Month as one's wife begins to show her age is more of a threat to a heterosexual marriage.   

Quote
Quote
If not, why prohibit it?

Again, we've dealt with this argument before. Why permit it? What benefit does it bring?

Some people are capable only of homosexual love. I don't understand it myself, but I don't need to understand homosexuality any more than I need to understand why people get excited about NASCAR racing.   

Quote
Hey, because if gay marriage makes people happy

So would removing restrictions on consanguinity.
[/quote]

Prohibitions on consanguinity supposedly stop the accumulation of genetic faults -- and. worse, prevent some exploitative relationships.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 01:27:01 AM
Responding to Pbrower2A here.

Quote
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Actually, no, not the case here. I'm arguing that gay marriage does nothing to improve the already deteriorating situation. So the fallacy does not apply.

Quote
The only threat of homosexuality to a "straight" family is if the marriage is already shaky.

Again, I am not arguing this. I am arguing that granting benefits to marriage alternatives encourages more people to choose these alternatives. We see this with common law. Elevating common law to the same legal status and recognition of marriage, encourages more people to go that route. Why?

Basic common sense. Water flows through the easiest path.

Quote
Some people are capable only of homosexual love.

How do you know this to be true?

Quote
Prohibitions on consanguinity supposedly stop the accumulation of genetic faults -- and. worse, prevent some exploitative relationships.

So it is in the interest of the state to promote relationships that provide procreation?

As for exploitative relationships, that applies to all types of relationships, and can be used to ban any of them.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2012, 01:30:48 AM
Do you see homosexuality as a choice or what, alcon?

Does that help you to answer my questions, or explain why you seemed to be arguing what you're now claiming you never did? :\

Key words here - "I seemed". This is why I clarified myself. You had the wrong perception.

Now as for this point here, thank you for clarifying yourself. So you think we have strong predispositions that can be controlled. Ok.

Race is different, far different from this. This is why what applies to race cannot be applied to homosexuality. You can't suddenly stop being black, white, whatever. But you can change your habits and your desires.

This is a part of marriage - giving up things that you may have once enjoyed for other benefits inside a family. We restrict choices in marriage. Curtail behaviours that can be destructive out of concern for our partners and our family.

See where I'm going with this?

It comes back to the basic question - you are not what you do. What you do does not change who you are as a person.

I'm going to stop here. Get your reaction to all this.

Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

What point were you making with that initial post, if not the one I replied to?  ...How else does one read that?

I'm also waiting on an answer to the other questions from my last post.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 01:40:45 AM
Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

Ok, now lets go back a bit. That's an important point here.

Is the purpose of marriage to recognize all relationships? Or only some? If the purpose of marriage is to recognize all relationships, then you are correct here - that there's no rationale.

But if the purpose of marriage is to recognize only some relationships, then the question is - which relationships are relevant to recognition in marriage? Why have marriage at all?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2012, 02:06:01 AM
Again...race may not be selected, but participating in a relationship with someone of another race is.  It's probably easier to condition yourself out of love with someone of a different race than condition a sexual orientation change.

Ok, now lets go back a bit. That's an important point here.

Is the purpose of marriage to recognize all relationships? Or only some? If the purpose of marriage is to recognize all relationships, then you are correct here - that there's no rationale.

But if the purpose of marriage is to recognize only some relationships, then the question is - which relationships are relevant to recognition in marriage? Why have marriage at all?

I'll keep this broad and short, but feel free to ask me to expand as-needed!

I think that the best argument for civil marriage is incentivizing monogamy and stability and other conditions that have positive societal benefits (...nice windows? :P)

How this lines up with your response re: interracial marriage or explaining why your original comment sounded like it was arguing gay marriage did bad things, I do not know!  I look forward to being led down the (garden? :P) path on this one...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 02:19:39 AM
I'll keep this broad and short, but feel free to ask me to expand as-needed!

I think that the best argument for civil marriage is incentivizing monogamy and stability and other conditions that have positive societal benefits (...nice windows? :P)

How this lines up with your response re: interracial marriage or explaining why your original comment sounded like it was arguing gay marriage did bad things, I do not know!  I look forward to being led down the (garden? :P) path on this one...

I'm getting to there.

I believe that race, for the purposes of marriage to the state is irrelevant. It makes no difference to the state to recognise marriage between say black people and white people or whatever.

Personally, this is something that's really important to me. My own preferences are for someone who isn't white. Statewise, the state derives the exact same benefit either way.

However, I don't see this as true with gay marriage. I think the state has a legitimate concern to promote marriage between one man and one woman for two purposes:

1, marital stability. Marriage is the best outcome for a man and a woman because the alternatives (as we are seeing right now with common law), are less stable. They are more likely to break up.

2, procreation. Marriage, between a man and a woman is the best situation for children. I am not saying that alternatives are unworkable, just that on the overall scale - it's in the best interest of the state to promote what has and does work. Even though many children are born outside of wedlock marriage is more likely to produce families with sufficient children to not only sustain, but to induce population growth.

Where does gay marriage fit into this? If we start saying that marriage isn't about the union between a man and a woman, then it starts to lose it's purpose. The question starts being asked - what benefit does the state derive from marriage recognition? Would the state be better off providing no recognition whatsoever?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Phony Moderate on March 15, 2012, 05:10:18 AM
()


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Brittain33 on March 15, 2012, 09:28:59 AM
Is this getting back to "gays can choose to be celibate and single, so they should consider that most of society would like them to do that, and take the hint"?

No thanks. Sorry.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2012, 12:48:12 PM
I'm getting to there.

I believe that race, for the purposes of marriage to the state is irrelevant. It makes no difference to the state to recognise marriage between say black people and white people or whatever.

Personally, this is something that's really important to me. My own preferences are for someone who isn't white. Statewise, the state derives the exact same benefit either way.

However, I don't see this as true with gay marriage. I think the state has a legitimate concern to promote marriage between one man and one woman for two purposes:

1, marital stability. Marriage is the best outcome for a man and a woman because the alternatives (as we are seeing right now with common law), are less stable. They are more likely to break up.

Interracial marriages have higher divorce rates.  Something like 50% higher I believe.  Maybe you should condition yourself to love somebody else -- you know, for society's sake.

However, the better question is really not whether divorce rates are higher, but whether the effect of marriage on a given population is to increase monogamy -- since the purpose of the public policy is to increase monogamy, not necessarily just keep divorce rates down.  No?

2, procreation. Marriage, between a man and a woman is the best situation for children. I am not saying that alternatives are unworkable, just that on the overall scale - it's in the best interest of the state to promote what has and does work. Even though many children are born outside of wedlock marriage is more likely to produce families with sufficient children to not only sustain, but to induce population growth.

What do you honestly think gay marriage prohibition does more of?

1. Causes gays to rethink the gay thing, turn straight, and have kids.

2. Discourage long-term gay couples, about a third of whom adopt -- which is something we (and the world generally) need.

Where does gay marriage fit into this? If we start saying that marriage isn't about the union between a man and a woman, then it starts to lose it's purpose. The question starts being asked - what benefit does the state derive from marriage recognition? Would the state be better off providing no recognition whatsoever?

Yes, and ignoring arguments of equal protection (which still are important to me), the case for heterosexual marriage being a significantly superior policy to gay marriage seems terrible to me.

I still have no idea what this has to do with your first post in this thread, btw, or my questions about your methods of analysis.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 02:52:08 PM
Quote
Interracial marriages have higher divorce rates.  Something like 50% higher I believe.  Maybe you should condition yourself to love somebody else -- you know, for society's sake.

Again, going back to the point in question - is marriage about recognizing all relationships or just some. No one is saying that you have to leave the person that you love, far from it.

But I am asking - should we recognize this particular relationship as marriage?

Quote
whether the effect of marriage on a given population is to increase monogamy

Given the lack of participation of the gay community into marriage - I don't see how one can argue that gay marriage increases monogamy among them.

Quote
since the purpose of the public policy is to increase monogamy

Well, then gay marriage is a failure due to lack of participation.

Quote
What do you honestly think gay marriage prohibition does more of?

1. Causes gays to rethink the gay thing, turn straight, and have kids.

2. Discourage long-term gay couples, about a third of whom adopt -- which is something we (and the world generally) need.

Again, as you've so beautifully argued early - gay marriage has no effect on the overall divorce rate because there isn't enough of them.

Which has the larger effect - 10 percent of the population choosing not to get married at all, or 1 percent of the population choosing to adopt?

You've said that we should not expect overall marriage rates to go up because there's not enough gay people, and at the same time, you're arguing now that they are going to have a net, positive effect.

Which is it? If they are going to have a net positive effect here, shouldn't we also be seeing a net positive effect on the marriage rate too?

Quote
Yes, and ignoring arguments of equal protection

And we get another argument pulled out of the bin.

Equal protection doesn't apply here. Equal protection only applies to things like race, and disability, things which are not choices. We don't apply equal protection to things that can change over time.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Fritz on March 15, 2012, 04:46:40 PM
Being gay is not a "choice."  One cannot "choose" to be gay, any more than one can "choose" to be straight.  You could argue that gays can choose not to act upon their homosexuality, to which I would say, straights can also choose not to act upon their heterosexuality.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 04:54:04 PM
Being gay is not a "choice."  One cannot "choose" to be gay, any more than one can "choose" to be straight.  You could argue that gays can choose not to act upon their homosexuality, to which I would say, straights can also choose not to act upon their heterosexuality.

One, alcon already conceded this point quite awhile back. He can't use this argument anymore.

Two, that's a terrible argument. Are you arguing that celibacy is impossible?

Yes, straight people make the choice to engage in relationships with men or women according to their desires. They can choose not to engage in these relationships, same with gay people.

Once again, who you are has no bearing on what you choose to do.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Fritz on March 15, 2012, 05:21:40 PM
I am not going to wade through all the pages of argument here to see what Alcon said.  Of course I am not arguing that celibacy is impossible, in fact I conceded that celibacy is possible for straights and gays alike.  I would argue that celibacy is undesirable, for straights and gays alike.  Everyone wants to have sex, and should be able to do so, within safe guidelines of course.  But when you start to argue that homosexuality itself is something that is chosen, and that gays are not entitled to equal protection under the law because of that, I have to take issue with that.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Free Palestine on March 15, 2012, 05:39:30 PM
Why in the [Inks] should gay people be celibate?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oakvale on March 15, 2012, 05:52:53 PM
What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 05:59:06 PM
I would argue that celibacy is undesirable, for straights and gays alike. 

According to whom? You? This is entirely a matter of choice.


Evidence for this?

But when you start to argue that homosexuality itself is something that is chosen

It is something that is chosen. People choose to engage in sexual activity.

gays are not entitled to equal protection under the law because of that

Nonsense. Everyone is entitled to the equal protection of the law.

Everyone's choices are not entitled to equal protection. There's a difference. Again. Who you are as a person is not what you do.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 05:59:28 PM
Why does the state have to "benefit" from gay marriage?  Perhaps a "focus on the family" (ha ha), in this case the gay ones, might be more appropriate. The "state" (or its defenders) needs to document some rather grievous harm to itself, for there to be any case for putting a group of citizens into a second class status to even begin to fashion any even colorably persuasive argument here. The rest is noise.

I wonder what percentage of those opposed to gay marriage are almost entirely animated by "the fact" that gay sex disgusts them, makes them feel uncomfortable, and is personally emotionally threatening, and that all of these little arguments are just window dressing, to wit, putting lip stick on the pig. I suspect it's north of 80%, maybe even higher.

What does celibacy have to do with gay marriage? Men are not into celibacy - period - and never will be. They are not designed that way. You could make gay sex a felony, and it won't reduce its incidence much. Or is this some no sex outside of marriage thing, which at this juncture is almost universally ignored - and ridiculed - as it should be. Some of this sounds like a recipe for just a lot of hypocrisy. Humans don't change their actual behavior here much based on a bunch of societal conventions to the extent they exist - they just do it behind closed doors.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 06:00:28 PM
What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.

And it's always a good thing to indulge in our natural impulses? What is natural is not always good.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Free Palestine on March 15, 2012, 06:03:46 PM
It is something that is chosen. People choose to engage in sexual activity.

Which isn't the same as being straight or gay.  Derp.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 06:05:53 PM
Why does the state have to "benefit" from gay marriage?

This gets back to the earlier part of the discussion. What is the purpose of state recognition of marriage? If there is no public benefit, then there is no rationale for state involvement.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 06:08:15 PM
Quote
Which isn't the same as being straight or gay.  Derp.

And different from disability.

Equal protection doesn't apply to individual choices and decisions.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oakvale on March 15, 2012, 06:35:09 PM
What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.

And it's always a good thing to indulge in our natural impulses? What is natural is not always good.

If it doesn't do anyone any harm, sure. ???


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on March 15, 2012, 06:40:25 PM
Quote
Which isn't the same as being straight or gay.  Derp.

And different from disability.

Equal protection doesn't apply to individual choices and decisions.

()


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2012, 07:27:19 PM
Ben,

Have to make this fast, but here's a few responses:

Again, going back to the point in question - is marriage about recognizing all relationships or just some. No one is saying that you have to leave the person that you love, far from it.

But I am asking - should we recognize this particular relationship as marriage?

Yes.

Please just answer directly about interracial marriage.  "Race is not a choice" is invalid because marrying someone of a different race is a choice, certainly moreso than sexual orientation.

Given the lack of participation of the gay community into marriage - I don't see how one can argue that gay marriage increases monogamy among them.

Well, then gay marriage is a failure due to lack of participation. 

That doesn't follow.  Not to be a dick, but I've already said why:  you're equivocating marginal differences with non-differences.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

Again, as you've so beautifully argued early - gay marriage has no effect on the overall divorce rate because there isn't enough of them.

What does "no effect on the overall divorce rate" mean?  Having "no effect" is different than dominating the trends in divorce rate.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

Which has the larger effect - 10 percent of the population choosing not to get married at all, or 1 percent of the population choosing to adopt?

You are accepting this hypothesis based on intuition and not empircal evidence, and then refusing to consider other hypotheses based on the same reason.  You have double standards in your analysis that are designed to reach your conclusions.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

You've said that we should not expect overall marriage rates to go up because there's not enough gay people, and at the same time, you're arguing now that they are going to have a net, positive effect.

Yes, because those aren't mutually exclusive!  (Assuming "net" refers to the net of the policy.)

Which is it? If they are going to have a net positive effect here, shouldn't we also be seeing a net positive effect on the marriage rate too?

False dichotomy, as I've already explained.  It's irritating when I've pointed this out directly three times (at least) and you just repeat it instead of addressing the critique.

And we get another argument pulled out of the bin.

I don't even know what criticism I'm levying here.  This thread started out as an empirical challenge because you quoted Santorum's claim that gay marriage contributed to the "broken window" effect and called it reasonable.  Now you're denying you meant to argue that, and not explaining why.  So, I started by challenging that claim.  You are now complaining that I did not bring in every argument I have re: gay marriage at the beginning?  I was addressing one specific claim.  You're being absurd.

Equal protection doesn't apply here. Equal protection only applies to things like race, and disability, things which are not choices. We don't apply equal protection to things that can change over time.

Would you feel that there is an argument for equal protection applying to interracial marriage, or no?  (Note that the analogue here is not race, but the act of marrying someone of the other race.)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 15, 2012, 07:41:17 PM
Being gay is not a "choice."  One cannot "choose" to be gay, any more than one can "choose" to be straight.  You could argue that gays can choose not to act upon their homosexuality, to which I would say, straights can also choose not to act upon their heterosexuality.

One, alcon already conceded this point quite awhile back. He can't use this argument anymore.

I never used that argument, so I didn't "concede it."

It's weird how you can QUOTE AN ARGUMENT, call it "reasonable," and yet you now insist it was unreasonable to assume you were arguing that (gay marriage contributing to "broken window.")

And, yet, I never said "sexual orientation [expression] isn't at all a choice!" and now I "conceded" that argument.

I've been striving to be as precise as possible with your argument, and I'm starting to feel you're not doing the same to me in kind...


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 07:50:57 PM
Quote
Which isn't the same as being straight or gay.  Derp.

And different from disability.

Equal protection doesn't apply to individual choices and decisions.

()

I sent that one into the Forum Community mash pit. It was just too good to pass up.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 07:53:21 PM
Why does the state have to "benefit" from gay marriage?

This gets back to the earlier part of the discussion. What is the purpose of state recognition of marriage? If there is no public benefit, then there is no rationale for state involvement.

The public benefit is contributing to the happiness and equality of a cohort of citizens. To offset that, one needs some pretty solid empirical evidence of the concomitant damage to society as a whole. I am not sure why this is such a confusing issue.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
Quote
Please just answer directly about interracial marriage.  

Already have. I said, very specifically that I support interracial marriage.  

Quote
"Race is not a choice" is invalid because marrying someone of a different race is a choice, certainly moreso than sexual orientation.

Ok, and? You've made this argument many times now. Race is not relevant to marriage. Sex is. Marriage is about sex, no?

Quote
That doesn't follow.

It does follow. If only 10 percent of all gay couples are getting married, then the policy is an outright failure at promoting monogamy.

Quote
What does "no effect on the overall divorce rate" mean?

You said that 'we should not expect to see gay marriage have any effect on the overall divorce rate', because it's overshadowed by simple numbers.

You said it so yourself. Now you claim that it is going to have an effect, even though the same principle applies.

Answer the question please, if 10 percent of couples choose not to get married, isn't that going to overshadow a 1 percent increase in adoption rates?

Simple yes or no.

Quote
Yes, because those aren't mutually exclusive!

The same effect applies equally to both. You can't have it both ways, alcon. You've used it as a rationale as to why we shouldn't expect to see gay marriage have positive effects on the overall rate. Now you say that we should.

So either your former explanation is wrong, or your new explanation is wrong. I'm going to go with your new explanation being wrong.

Quote
False dichotomy, as I've already explained.

No, sorry. The same overweighting effect applies to both of them. This is your own argument that you used to dismiss the argument that we should see improvements in the overall marriage rates.

I agreed with you that the overweighting effect was going on, now you're getting defensive when confronted with the consequences of this conclusion. Same train rolling down both.

Quote
Would you feel that there is an argument for equal protection applying to interracial marriage, or no?

I just said that equal protection applies to race, because race is something that you do not choose.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:04:28 PM
Quote

I never said "sexual orientation [expression] isn't at all a choice!"

I'm not saying you did. FFS.

Read the post.

I said just the opposite, that you said that it IS a choice. Therefore you don't have access to the arguments that Fitzy was bringing forth (which assume just the opposite).

I'm arguing with you and Fitzy, both of whom make different arguments, come from different assumptions at the same time. Arguments I address to Fitzy are not addressed to you and vice-versa.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 15, 2012, 08:05:25 PM
Quote
"Race is not a choice" is invalid because marrying someone of a different race is a choice, certainly moreso than sexual orientation.

Ok, and? You've made this argument many times now. Race is not relevant to marriage. Sex is. Marriage is about sex, no?

...no. At least, not always.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:09:18 PM
Quote
The public benefit is contributing to the happiness and equality of a cohort of citizens.

90 percent of whom reject the option when offered. If equality were the issue here, would you not expect to see different numbers?

The fact of the matter is that equality, isn't the issue here. Gay people do not feel significantly discriminated against by society in this matter. They simply have no interest in marriage at all.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:10:27 PM
Quote
...no. At least, not always.

Nathan - what to you is the purpose of marriage?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 08:12:10 PM
Quote

I never said "sexual orientation [expression] isn't at all a choice!"

I'm not saying you did. FFS.

Read the post.

I said just the opposite, that you said that it IS a choice. Therefore you don't have access to the arguments that Fitzy was bringing forth (which assume just the opposite).

I'm arguing with you and Fitzy, both of whom make different arguments, come from different assumptions at the same time. Arguments I address to Fitzy are not addressed to you and vice-versa.

Alcon said sexual preference is a combo of nature and nurture, and a continuum, with some swingable. That is clearly true in my experience. And all sex acts are a matter of choice, although men who are just not sexually satisfied with women, and not particularly attracted to them, and to do what you want them to do,  making a choice to be celibate, for most is the road to misery and often worse (closeted gays, and in particular, closed celibate gays,  tend to be very sad cases indeed often). So while it is a "choice" (heck choosing to eat is a choice; the alternative being to starve yourself to death) to foist that choice on them, through social pressure or otherwise, is profoundly immoral, and dare I say it "un-Christian," absent some compelling reason supported by solid empirical evidence, to just view gays as collateral damage, who "need " to take a hit for the team.

In short, where is the compassion, asks this particular Godless Pub poster?  Does that matter at all?

One thing I do know. Those who are actually "exposed" to un-closeted gays, and work with them, and interact with them, in most instances, if not totally hard wired on this, change their opinions. That is one reason, and a good reason, why it is rather important, that the closet be jettisoned to make room for a larger kitchen as it were. Folks tend to respond well to folks who are just themselves - and authentic - and just decent human beings. What you see is what you get.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on March 15, 2012, 08:14:25 PM
Quote
...no. At least, not always.

Nathan - what to you is the purpose of marriage?

I won't speak for Nathan, but I believe such novel ideas like "love" and "connection with someone who shares your values/goals (or is at least supportive of them), etc." are quite popular these days.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:21:54 PM
Quote
I won't speak for Nathan, but I believe such novel ideas like "love" and "connection with someone who shares your values/goals (or is at least supportive of them), etc." are quite popular these days.

Love as in? Love doesn't tell me much here.

I have a good connection with my friends. Is this the type of relationship that you believe marriage is about?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
Quote
The public benefit is contributing to the happiness and equality of a cohort of citizens.

90 percent of whom reject the option when offered. If equality were the issue here, would you not expect to see different numbers?

The fact of the matter is that equality, isn't the issue here. Gay people do not feel significantly discriminated against by society in this matter. They simply have no interest in marriage at all.

How many gay people have you spoken to, because that assertion strikes me as ludicrous. Folks like to have options. Do you have a poll?  What I do know, is that gay neighborhoods in LA, etc., voted almost unanimously against Prop 8 - yes almost unanimously. Let's wait until gay marriage has been around for a generation, and been in place and accepted as gays hit marriageable age, and see what happens OK, as to how many embrace it. Not that it matters. If only 10% embrace it, you still need to make your empirical case. We don't F folks because they are a small minority, so just let's just screw them. That is immoral too. It's just wrong - period. Small minorities need the most protection of all. If gays were 20% of the population, rather than 5%, this issue would have been "resolved" long, long ago.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:32:59 PM
Quote
Alcon said sexual preference is a combo of nature and nurture, and a continuum, with some swingable.

Which happens to be my opinion also. I believe that people have predispositions, but that they can overcome said predispositions. This is the important part. Everyone chooses whether they wish to be engaged in sex or not. This is different from race, substantially different. You can't 'opt out' of race, but you can opt out of sex.

Quote
although men who are just not sexually satisfied with women, and not particularly attracted to them, and to do what you want them to do.

Legally, there is nothing barring them from seeking and enjoying these relationships. That is the proper role of the state which argues through freedom of association that they are free to associate as they wish.

What I desire, I don't believe I've stated here in the thread. What the Church teaches, and what I believe - is that those engaged in these relationships should refrain from doing so. There's a difference between what the Church teaches on this issue, and the proper role of the state - and I recognize this.

However, that's not the issue wrt gay marriage. Gay marriage is a completely different argument. You are now arguing that it is in the benefit of the state to recognize these relationships (and exclude other ones) as marriage.

Quote
for most is the road to misery and often worse (closeted gays, and in particular, closed celibate gays,  tend to be very sad cases indeed often).

Evidence for said assertion would be nice.

Quote
So while it is a "choice" (heck choosing to eat is a choice; the alternative being to starve yourself to death)

Are you saying you would die without sex? This is not true. Your analogy fails.

Quote
dare I say it "un-Christian,"

What do you believe Christ teaches on this matter?

Quote
Those who are actually "exposed" to un-closeted gays, and work with them, and interact with them, in most instances, if not totally hard wired on this, change their opinions.

So your assertion is that I've had no contact with gay people? Are you really willing to make this argument? This is a terrible argument.

Just because someone is exposed to an opinion doesn't say anything about what they will come to believe as a result of said exposure.

Quote
just decent human beings.

Do you believe that someone who refrains from engaging in sex is 'inauthentic'? Do you believe that said person is indecent? I'm curious here.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 08:48:46 PM
I have no idea what you do in your personal life. I said "most" who interact with gays, and have some heart, do respond. At least in my world.

()

I said "some" and you seem to infer that "some" means most all. To get more precise, my intuition, is that some, means something like 10%-20% of the gay population that is bisexual enough, that if the constraints and sanctions are enough, could be coerced, if vulnerable enough, economically and/or psychologically,  into the path that you think is "Biblical,"  or whatever, without being made considerably more miserable and to use that term which has fallen out of favor, but which I still like, un-self actualized.

I could get more detailed here, but this is "supposed" to be a family friendly site as it were, so I won't.

The bottom line: some does not equal all here - at all.





Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:51:06 PM
Quote
How many gay people have you spoken to

I'm not quite sure how that's relevant. Either the argument is true or false. Attacking me will not change this.

Quote
Folks like to have options.

Is that what marriage is about? Increasing your options?


Quote
Do you have a poll?

Again the argument is this.

1, people who want things, when given the opportunity to do so, do them.
2, 90 percent of gay people choose not to marry.

3, ergo, I conclude that for most gay people, they do not want to marry.
  
Quote
What I do know, is that gay neighborhoods in LA, etc., voted almost unanimously against Prop 8

As they did in British Columbia. However, those same people who clamored to change the law, 90 percent have chosen not to participate.

How would you explain this? I'm curious.

Quote
Let's wait until gay marriage has been around for a generation

If there is pent up demand, we would expect to see a spike and then a slow decline over time. This isn't what has happened. From what I can see, marriage is relevant to a very tiny minority of gay people, and that's all.

Do you believe that in 20 years that this is going to change substantially from 10 percent? Is that really your argument? I don't see it.

Quote
If only 10% embrace it, you still need to make your empirical case.

Then you need to explain why 90 percent of gay people are choosing against equality if the issue is really equality. We've done as you asked, and the numbers are not what you predicted would be the case. Ergo, I can only conclude that your premises are in fact flawed.

Quote
Small minorities need the most protection of all.

Then why are so few gay people choosing to get married, if the change in marriage laws 'protects them'? Why are so few gay people choosing to get married if they are 'screwed' without it? I surmise, that they are happy enough without marriage which is why they choose not to get married.

Feel free to submit evidence contrary.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 08:56:58 PM
Quote
I have no idea what you do in your personal life. I said "most" who interact with gays, and have some heart, do respond. At least in my world.

So you feel this is a winning argument for you? It's a terrible argument and not worthy of your time. If the argument is correct, then my interactions are irrelevant. If the argument is incorrect, then my interactions are still irrelevant.

Quote
To get more precise, my intuition, is that some, means something like 10%-20% of the gay population that is bisexual enough, that if the constraints and sanctions are enough, could be coerced

So what you are saying is that no 'true' gay converts?
 
Quote
into the path that you think is "Biblical,"  or whatever, without being made considerably more miserable

Have I stated here anywhere what I believe they should do? Seems to me you're making assumptions without asking me what I actually believe. I'm happy to answer you but you have to ask first.

Anyways, coercion is wrong. Some gay people choose to seek therapy to help them overcome predispositions that they do not want. Just like some alcoholics do the same. I fail to see why someone who chooses to undertake said therapy is acting contrary to their will.

Quote
self actualized.

Do you believe that someone who is voluntarily celibate is 'un-self actualized?'


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 08:57:33 PM
One can speculate about what gays will do 20 years hence, with gay marriage accepted, and considered the norm in the interim, but since I don't think it has any relevance to the moral arguments that I have made (I understanding that it is my morality rather than yours obviously, since we were raised, and have had life experiences, which result in a very different world view), what is the point really? It is indeed speculation.

I am not going to further respond to your other points, because we are going over the same thing, again and again. So consider that you have "won" all those points if you wish. Let the reader decide. I've written my brief, and you have written yours. It is time to submit to the ruling of the Atlasian square.

We are never going to agree, or even really agree, about what we disagree on, and precisely why - which is unfortunate. I think I know why, but to pound that out the keyboard, is not something that I wish to do - in part because I can't be sure, and in part, because my preference is to give posters, all posters, some personal space to have their own beliefs, without trying to nail them to the cross as it were. That is just my style.  Beliefs change incrementally over time anyway. Next to nobody has some personal epiphany that is caused and revealed, and witnessed, within one thread.

Hopefully I and others have given you some stuff to ponder privately, and over time. Be well. There is a great big and diverse world out there, which with luck and if you are adventurous, and brave, to which you will be exposed to over time. So says this particular old man.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 09:05:47 PM
Quote
since we were raised, and have had life experiences, which result in a very different world view

What did I say earlier about making assumptions? ;)

If you want to know about my background - ask.

They don't suit you Torie. I could say that you're living in a gay bathhouse in San Francisco, because of your CA avatar if that would make you feel better. :p


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oakvale on March 15, 2012, 09:07:54 PM
Anyways, coercion is wrong. Some gay people choose to seek therapy to help them overcome predispositions that they do not want. Just like some alcoholics do the same. I fail to see why someone who chooses to undertake said therapy is acting contrary to their will.

Quote
self actualized.

Do you believe that someone who is voluntarily celibate is 'un-self actualized?'

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I just want to address these two points briefly.

My response would be that I don't think it's very healthy for someone to voluntarily supress their basic, biological urges, either in terms of not having sex at all or attempting to "cure" themselves of their sexual orientation by brainwashing or however those programs work.

There are people who are asexual, not many (AFAIK it's similar to Asperger's in that it's a self-diagnosed condition by nerds on the internet a lot of times ;) ), but they do exist. Unless you're asexual I think it's harmful to supress a basic human instinct when it's not doing anyone any harm.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 09:09:50 PM
Quote
since we were raised, and have had life experiences, which result in a very different world view

What did I say earlier about making assumptions? ;)

If you want to know about my background - ask.

They don't suit you Torie. I could say that you're living in a gay bathhouse in San Francisco, because of your CA avatar if that would make you feel better. :p

Gay bathhouses aren't suitable housing for me. I'm spoiled.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 09:18:35 PM
Quote
My response would be that I don't think it's very healthy for someone to voluntarily supress their basic, biological urges.

Well, that's Maslow isn't it? Sex as a basic need, with morality as just about the very last one?

Quote
Unless you're asexual I think it's harmful to supress a basic human instinct when it's not doing anyone any harm.

What I would argue is this.

An individual who is fulfilled on Maslow's higher needs is willing to forgo some of the others in order to get fulfillment on the highest levels. Someone who fulfills their moral needs by acting in accordance to their beliefs can go without the other needs and still feel 'self-actualized'.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Oakvale on March 15, 2012, 09:36:24 PM
Quote
My response would be that I don't think it's very healthy for someone to voluntarily supress their basic, biological urges.

Well, that's Maslow isn't it? Sex as a basic need, with morality as just about the very last one?

Quote
Unless you're asexual I think it's harmful to supress a basic human instinct when it's not doing anyone any harm.

What I would argue is this.

An individual who is fulfilled on Maslow's higher needs is willing to forgo some of the others in order to get fulfillment on the highest levels. Someone who fulfills their moral needs by acting in accordance to their beliefs can go without the other needs and still feel 'self-actualized'.

I'm not even talking philosophically, but psychologically.

 It's not healthy for (to use an example that might apply to evangelical Christians) teenagers going through puberty to abstain from masturbation, but (again, assuming) I'm sure there are those raised in ultra-religious households who try, fail, and are wracked with guilt for giving into normal instincts.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 09:41:38 PM
Quote
It's not healthy for (to use an example that might apply to evangelical Christians) teenagers going through puberty to abstain from masturbation, but (again, assuming) I'm sure there are those raised in ultra-religious households who try, fail, and are wracked with guilt for giving into normal instincts

How does one define what is 'normal'?


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: TJ in Oregon on March 15, 2012, 09:42:34 PM
I've never understood why repressing one's concupiscience is automatically viewed as a bad thing. Being able to resist the urge to act on a temptation of some sort is a crucial part of self-discipline. I guess it really comes down to tightly connected you view a concept of temporal hapiness to our purpose on this earth. I've also found in my rather brief life so far is that I am not always less happy while under a burden view as terrible (ie. we find a way to make ourselves just as happy doing without something we hold dear). I believe there's something more than this life and that shapes my worldview on these matters substantially. On a personal level I find the notion that self-discipline (ie. not always acting on a temptation) to be a backwards and twisted thought.

On a political level, it clearly gets more complicated that that. Government recognized marriage as a subsidy to encourage a certain behavior that society deems beneficial. If society deems gay marriage worthy of that subsidy then it should be recognized by that society. Notice how race is treated differently that gender in our history; the Equal Rights Amendment failed. If it had passed we very likely would have to required gay marriage on the grounds that forbiding it is gender discrimination.

As far as the "broken windows" theory regarding gay marriage, I think there is something there but it's more long-term than fluctuations in marriage and divorce rates over a five-year period in Massachusetts vs. the rest of the country. The real issue here that will change society is the underlying concept of sexuality and family life. I highly doubt many if any straight couples are going to suddenly decide to get a divorce just because gay marriage has been legalized. It's more of a "populations change but individuals do not" type of effect where those who grow up in an atmosphere where homosexuality is socially acceptable will be less likely to view the possibility of procreation as a requirement for sexual morality.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Torie on March 15, 2012, 09:56:48 PM
TJ, if it is all about the money (and marriage is not all about government subsidy - ever hear about the "marriage penalty" in the tax code?), just why are "civil unions" where you get the subsidy (at least on the state level) so much more accepted, than if you call it "marriage?"  There seems to be a lot of psychological energy riding on the mere moniker.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: TJ in Oregon on March 15, 2012, 10:06:49 PM
TJ, if it is all about the money (and marriage is not all about government subsidy - ever hear about the "marriage penalty" in the tax code?),...

True, there are some logistical benefits of marriage, mainly that the government recognizes you as family. This is still essentially a subsidy since most people view having a legal marriage as on the net beneficial.

Quote
just why are "civil unions" where you get the subsidy (at least on the state level) so much more accepted, than if you call it "marriage?"  There seems to be a lot of psychological energy riding on the mere moniker.

That's becuase there are people who feel gay marriage is personally unacceptable but should be legally recognized, perhaps they see some value in a committed relationship regardless of sexuality or because they view "marriage" as something reserved for religious purposes and "civil union" as allowing benefits to be received. I don't see much difference between the two--no matter what you call them--but a lot of people do.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 15, 2012, 10:08:58 PM
To respond to Ben's question about love up above, there is certainly something of the erotic about romantic love, but the erotic need not necessarily be sexual. It's a general flavor of loving somebody that does not have to include any kind of particular acts or even desire for particular acts. I am a person who does not experience sexual desire, and I have fallen head over heels in love. I have somebody I'm still in love with, even though she's dead (I'd rather not talk about it).

Certainly we need to have social discussions about any incidental restrictions on this idea of marriage we might need to impose on the basis of things like sketchy power dynamics (incest/intergenerational stuff), but for this, even for the maintenance of family life once it's entered into however that may be, people happening to be the same biological sex, which doesn't necessarily correlate to any germane feature of a person's actual existence, doesn't strike me as particularly important.

I understand the concerns about procreation in terms of sexual morality (I don't necessarily share them but I do understand them) but it's the idea that sex has to be involved for a good romantic or conjugal or family life to be established that I don't like, partially because I agree entirely in principle with TJ that there can indeed be some very good things to be said for ignoring the wants of concupiscence, whatever one might have in the way of concupiscence. Even if you care about the maintenance of biological relations, which to a certain extent I think is a perfectly valid concern, those can get pretty diffuse and still be meaningful. The term 'social construct' is thrown around a lot these days but parenthood as inherently connected to biology is one of them.

The reason why it's best that marriage and family life remain based around pairs of adults rather than larger groups is that in a pair there's a certain at least theoretical symmetry in the relationality. Again, I don't think this has to involve what sex the pair are any more, even if there were periods in social history where that was important (which I am not necessarily denying). The family, rather than being valuable for its own sake, is to be valued as a way of constructing the ground level of society that is a microcosm of the kinds of loves and relationalities we're vouchsafed of the community of the righteous.

Some things will change; some things never change. The process of change certainly can seem fickle but there remain things that we can and definitely should conserve, even if we are people who are on my side on this particular issue. I hope you'll find me as an ally in defending the importance of these kinds of storge relationalities, even as due to the specifics of my own existence and experience I can't really couch connecting them necessarily to particular gender dynamics. Family as a conceptual structure and monogamy as an instance of committed and devoted Love remain among the most important things in the whole world.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 10:29:12 PM
Quote
To respond to Ben's question about love up above, there is certainly something of the erotic about romantic love, but the erotic need not necessarily be sexual.

Well, I would argue that sex is essential to marriage. You can't have marriage without sex. Yes, you are right that it's possible to engage in eros without sex, but that's not really what marriage is about. Eros without sex is what you'll see in courtship, where the couple will deny themselves the fulfillment of eros in order to develop the other forms of it. Marriage at the end of it is the culmination of eros. 

This is really a crucial distinction. If sex isn't necessary, then that opens the door to quite a few other relationships.

Quote
It's a general flavor of loving somebody that does not have to include any kind of particular acts or even desire for particular acts.

Well, I'd argue you're referring to agape here. And I agree that it's important in marriage too, but you need both. I have friends that I do love in this way that I would not want to marry.

Quote
I am a person who does not experience sexual desire, and I have fallen head over heels in love. I have somebody I'm still in love with, even though she's dead (I'd rather not talk about it).

Sorry to hear that. You have my sympathies. Didn't intend to bring up bad memories.

Quote
people happening to be the same biological sex, which doesn't necessarily correlate to any germane feature of a person's actual existence, doesn't strike me as particularly important.

Well, that goes back to your argument that you do not believe that sex is a required part of marriage.

Quote
but it's the idea that sex has to be involved for a good romantic or conjugal or family life to be established that I don't like

Well, that's a very important word. Conjugality. I would argue that the union of husband and wife in marriage is part of the reason why it's limited to men and women. It's a very specific word with a very specific meaning. It doesn't surprise me that you would find conjugality unnecessary given what you've already said.

Quote
The reason why it's best that marriage and family life remain based around pairs of adults rather than larger groups is that in a pair there's a certain at least theoretical symmetry in the relationality.

But if there's no conjugality, couldn't symmatry be acheived between evens?

Quote
I hope you'll find me as an ally in defending the importance of these kinds of storge relationalities, even as due to the specifics of my own existence and experience I can't really couch connecting them necessarily to particular gender dynamics. Family as a conceptual structure and monogamy as an instance of committed and devoted Love remain among the most important things in the whole world.

Storge is important, but this is really going to sound strange given the common perception - but I think your understanding of the relationship between eros and marriage is problematic. I cannot see most people seeing that marriage without sex would be something desireable, and I think most would see sexual desire in it's full glory as an important part of a healthy marriage.

I also think your points are not something that's unique - it's the other half that I don't think gets talked about enough. More people who feel like you, means fewer folks in marriage altogether, and fewer families. How this gets dealt with, I'm not sure.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: TJ in Oregon on March 15, 2012, 10:36:15 PM
Quote
To respond to Ben's question about love up above, there is certainly something of the erotic about romantic love, but the erotic need not necessarily be sexual.

Well, I would argue that sex is essential to marriage. You can't have marriage without sex. Yes, you are right that it's possible to engage in eros without sex, but that's not really what marriage is about. Eros without sex is what you'll see in courtship, where the couple will deny themselves the fulfillment of eros in order to develop the other forms of it. Marriage at the end of it is the culmination of eros. 

This is really a crucial distinction. If sex isn't necessary, then that opens the door to quite a few other relationships.

This difference comes from the fact that Nathan is a Protestant and thus does not seem to believe that sex is required for a marriage ti be sacramental, as it is in the Catholic Church. This topic rarely comes up since as Ben says, marriage without sex isn't a very popular idea (of course then we get entangled into discussion of contraceptives--which is another topic for another thread). :P


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 15, 2012, 10:39:04 PM
Actually, I was a Prot for many years.

I can't say my thinking on this point has changed since before I was a Christian.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 15, 2012, 11:33:25 PM
Well, see...I think you're misunderstanding me. It's a type of eros without sex that I think is possible, because I feel it as possible in my own life. When you think I am referring to agape in my first paragraph I actually am referring to (what I perceive and feel as distinctly) eros, which...to be honest is incredibly hard to explain, so the onus is entirely on me if I'm not doing it well. In any case that's something that feels possible for me, and since I am probably more a knight of infinity than a knight of faith, at least so far in my life, I am inclined to trust my judgment of the world on this point. It's probably not possible in most people's lives but it's not something that's inherently possible for humans. God could have afflicted you thisaway but He did not. God could have afflicted me youraway but He did not.

TJ is entirely correct that I don't feel that the sacramental character of marriage requires sex, though I do think that the sacramental character of sex calls for that of marriage. I'm not fond of the idea of sex outside of marriage--I would agree with most Catholics that it's piss-poor sacramental theology--but as you can see I view marriage if anything somewhat less restrictively than sex.

I'm avoiding getting into discussions of whether or not gay sex is or has to be sinful because that's been beaten to death many times over and we're discussing the character of marriage as it relates to the family. Ben is incorrect in presuming that I don't want marriage or a family, if he is presuming that (I'm not sure if he's doing that or just saying that the admitted strangeness of might outlook might put off other people if it became more general to the way marriage and family were constructed). I'm also using the word 'conjugal' in its generalized sense, which is tautological since in that sense it's essentially just the adjectival form of 'marriage'. As indeed it is somewhat tautological to define 'conjugal' as 'pertaining to husband in wife' in a debate over how marriage is to be defined.

Again, there are points I'm deliberately not arguing here because I feel that the idea that a by and large asexual marriage and family life is possible for those of us who are by basic inclination asexual is important to get across here, since the discussion had turned to the question of sex as necessary for eros and hence marriage. I'm perfectly aware that both my definition of eros and my experience of it are profoundly odd but I'm not asking anybody else to share them. (Full disclosure: I also feel a religious vocation but, again, as an Anglican this isn't construed as mutually exclusive to my feeling called to start or enter into a family unit.)

As to the symmetry/affinity I mentioned, you can technically get symmetry with even numbers but once there is a >2 number of people involved in any relationship the power dynamics become such that it's inherently irreconcilable with the sort of dialectic that should go on within a marriage. Could we at least agree on this point, even if we arrive at it differently?

I apologize for any incidental lack of clarity or diffuseness of what I'm saying here. I just finished midterms and I've been awake for sixteen hours on a previous four hours of sleep.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 16, 2012, 12:15:38 AM
Nothing to apologize for.

I guess I should rephrase.

You are arguing that you feel eros without sex. I know that's not agape. Agape is what I meant as the love between husband and wife (and friends, and others) as a self sacrificial giving love.

You're talking about something different here - eros without sex.  I didn't mean to call that Agape - it's very much eros. I think one of the important parts of marriage is the relief of eros with sex - the culmilation that I spoke of.

I actually believe that your viewpoint was much more common in the middle ages. The model was very different than it is today with everyone regulated into the 2.5 kids per family. Those who were more comfortable on their own in this asexual thing could be more welcomed in the Church in various ministries.

Those who felt this desire - would be free to have as many children as they wanted and would have large families, etc. We get to today and that's see as odd - the lack of desire for actual sex.

Interesting you feel a call to a vocation. Would you feel more comfortable being unmarried rather then putting on the burden of a family? I didn't mean to imply that I thought you didn't want one, just was trying to understand where you were coming from.

I've been told (and bluntly I might add), that I would be a good fit for the priesthood myself. I don't see it - but the ladies all seem to see that in me much more clearly then they see me as a lover, etc. I think that I come off as very asexual - which is mostly just temperment.

I very much want a famiy and a wife and lots of little ones. Nothing would make me happier than the part of the marriage relationship. I think I would make a poor priest - I love women too much. :)


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 16, 2012, 12:29:49 AM
I'm honestly not sure whether or not I feel comfortable or capable, having a family. I know I want one, very much so, but wanting one isn't the same as being called to having one, and the love that I mentioned a couple of posts ago is actually the BEST any of my attempts at becoming close to people I like that way so far have ended, so...I mean, add to that my views on extended versus nuclear family structures, and it's entirely possible I'll end up unmarried and childless myself, ordained a priest of the Episcopal Church, living as a member of a family in the role of cousin or uncle or something of the type. That isn't my ideal future but at this moment it seems most likely unless I meet somebody who absolutely sweeps me off my feet again. In that case I'll have a wife and kids (adopted or consenting to sex out of love for my wife, who knows) and holy orders. You presumably won't consider my holy orders valid but that's schism for you!

I do indeed feel more at home, to be honest, with a particular part of the High Middle Ages when there were good harvests and some theorized easing of Church attitudes towards benign gender-role variance (which a historian named John Boswell did some work on, work that you and I would probably both find highly hit-and-miss for almost entirely opposite reasons) than with most of what's come since then. What you see from me is often a fundamentally non-modern viewpoint--not necessarily any specific kind of premodern, but definitively not modern--translated into a life that experiences eros without sex, a very strange genderedness, a group of close friends most of whom are lesbians, and academic work on the language and literature of a country that's 98% non-Christian. I have to make uncomfortable choices, sometimes, about which aspects of my beliefs and experiences I want to prioritize, if that makes sense.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 16, 2012, 01:54:39 AM
Quote
What you see from me is often a fundamentally non-modern viewpoint

Up to a point. Hypermodern in the sense that you adopt many of the same viewpoints expressed in the Episcopal church. They aren't exactly rare these days especially among the educated folks.

As for recognition of the order - that has nothing to do with me - everything to do with a decision made some 500 years ago. It wasn't necessary to break off, but it was desired. The consequence being that the orders are no longer valid.

I really do believe the Catholic approach is more fruitful than the half in- half out awkwardness that is the Episcopal church. They really dont' seem to have a concrete path for themselves, and the aridity is starting to come out recently. Frankly, I don't see a future for them.

Losing the one person you love is hard. There is quite a bit we share in common - probably more than you would expect. Oddly, I feel that our lives, even if there is disagreement over the whys and wherefores are probably pretty similar in the hows, and don't really find much identification for the world of today.

Rare that I find someone that actually understands these points.

Do have a good evening. Peace + Blessings to you on your path.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 16, 2012, 01:39:27 PM
Quote
What you see from me is often a fundamentally non-modern viewpoint

Up to a point. Hypermodern in the sense that you adopt many of the same viewpoints expressed in the Episcopal church. They aren't exactly rare these days especially among the educated folks.

Well, that's the experiences and personality traits that influence the non-modern substructure of my worldview that I was talking about. At a basic level, the way I see the world is based on other things. I, as an Episcopalian, will of course align myself with the part of the Episcopal Church coming closest to my views, but I'm actually often made uncomfortable by the modern 'any consensual sex is okay' view and again, there's a relatively narrow scope of things at hand that are what make me align myself with the more liberal elements. I'd dearly like to align myself as a more traditional Anglo-Catholic within the Communion some day. It's not that I'm comfortable with the modern expression of these matters; I'm just more uncomfortable with the common alternatives that I've seen.

Quote
As for recognition of the order - that has nothing to do with me - everything to do with a decision made some 500 years ago. It wasn't necessary to break off, but it was desired. The consequence being that the orders are no longer valid.

I really do believe the Catholic approach is more fruitful than the half in- half out awkwardness that is the Episcopal church. They really dont' seem to have a concrete path for themselves, and the aridity is starting to come out recently. Frankly, I don't see a future for them.

Oh, I'm aware of all this history; I was just joking with you. I'm concerned about the Episcopal Church's future as well. To be quite honest there are a lot of days when I agree with you, and it scares me; in that case I'd enter into a desert exile without the desert. Schism might actually reinvigorate its own products, but that leads to a whole other scary dimension--we've prided ourselves as Anglicans on our internal broadness of worship and philosophy within the points of the Instruments of Unity and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral (which historically always has accommodated very conservative as well as very liberal standpoints). That was supposed to be our 'concrete path', it's why I am an Anglican, and I'm actually very afraid of losing it. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who is a member of my general faction and speaks my language, announced his resignation this morning, and I'm really concerned about the future.

Quote
Losing the one person you love is hard. There is quite a bit we share in common - probably more than you would expect. Oddly, I feel that our lives, even if there is disagreement over the whys and wherefores are probably pretty similar in the hows, and don't really find much identification for the world of today.

I agree entirely. Much like with TJ, it's been easier for me to talk to you and find common points of reference than with a lot of the liberals on here.

Quote
Rare that I find someone that actually understands these points.

Do have a good evening. Peace + Blessings to you on your path.

And you.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 16, 2012, 02:04:56 PM
Interracial marriage analogy

Already have. I said, very specifically that I support interracial marriage.

Ok, and? You've made this argument many times now. Race is not relevant to marriage. Sex is. Marriage is about sex, no?

If race is not relevant to sex, why do interracial marriages have 50% higher divorce rates?  Obviously, someone could easily argue (with empirical evidence) that "interracial vs. not" is relevant to marriage.  So, what would you say to someone who argued a similar "broken window" effect for interracial marriage?  And that interracial marriage is atraditional, potentially dangerous and fails to have a "net" effect on the overall divorce rate?

I just said that equal protection applies to race, because race is something that you do not choose.

...And it's less of a choice to be in an interracial relationship than a homosexual relationship?  You can't choose your race, but as you point at, you can choose (to some degree) your relationships.  If it's reasonable to ask people to choose their sexual orientation, why isn't it reasonable to ask you to stop dating someone of the other race?  The statistics show you're contributing to that "broken window" because your relationship is more likely to end in divorce.  Why wouldn't your mode of analysis demand extending the prohibition for interracial relationships too?  "Race" is different is not an answer when it fails the analogy because the analogous component is voluntary participation in an interracial relationship.

Issue of marginal effect

It does follow. If only 10 percent of all gay couples are getting married, then the policy is an outright failure at promoting monogamy.

That is not necessarily true, and I have explained why, but instead of engaging on me you have just chosen to repeat this statement.  (Marginal effects.)  It would help if you responded directly to be critiques.

You said that 'we should not expect to see gay marriage have any effect on the overall divorce rate', because it's overshadowed by simple numbers.

"Simple numbers"?  I.e., overshadowed by a population that outnumbers gays at least 10:1?

You said it so yourself. Now you claim that it is going to have an effect, even though the same principle applies.

I'm asking whether "no effect on the overall divorce rate" means:

1. The presence of gay marriage does not impact the divorce rate either way; or,

2. The presence of gay marriage does not impact the divorce rate sufficiently to compensate for any trends or current statuses in heterosexual marriage.

Those are different things...which has been a point I've made about five times now, minimum.

Answer the question please, if 10 percent of couples choose not to get married, isn't that going to overshadow a 1 percent increase in adoption rates?

Simple yes or no.

Obviously, yes, you're asking me a math problem.

The same effect applies equally to both. You can't have it both ways, alcon. You've used it as a rationale as to why we shouldn't expect to see gay marriage have positive effects on the overall rate. Now you say that we should.

So either your former explanation is wrong, or your new explanation is wrong. I'm going to go with your new explanation being wrong.

Again, when you say "positive effects on the overall rate," you mean something different than what "positive effects on the overall rate" actually means.  When someone loses $5,000 for an organization and I donate $1,000, that $1,000 has a "positive effect on the overall rate" even if it does not render the organization's cashflow positive.  I have explained multiple times that I'm making this distinction (want me to pull out quotes?) but you continue to equivocate.

I agreed with you that the overweighting effect was going on, now you're getting defensive when confronted with the consequences of this conclusion. Same train rolling down both.

I'm really only getting defensive about your equivocation of marginal effects with non-effects.  I also might be defensive about the phrase "same train rolling down both" if I had any idea what it means.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 16, 2012, 10:16:07 PM
Quote
If race is not relevant to sex, why do interracial marriages have 50% higher divorce rates?

50 percent higher than what? The average marriage in the US?

You do know that most people in the US are white, right? And that white folks have a lower divorce rate than other races?

Ergo - it stands to reason that a mixed marriage between someone who is white and someone who is not would have a higher divorce rate.

Quote
So, what would you say to someone who argued a similar "broken window" effect for interracial marriage?

Because we see these same problems with intraracial, non-white marriages?

Quote
And it's less of a choice to be in an interracial relationship than a homosexual relationship?

Quote
why isn't it reasonable to ask you to stop dating someone of the other race?

Same answer to both of these.

Freedom of association. See, you're all over the place here. The state has no privilege to regulate relationships. It does have the privilege to regulate marriage. Unless you're arguing that all relationships should be considered marriage, then your point doesn't work.

WRT to marriage - sex is relevant, race is not.

Quote
Why wouldn't your mode of analysis demand extending the prohibition for interracial relationships too?

You've completely missed the point of my earlier argument. But that's ok, since you really don't care about what I said earlier.

Again, interracial marriage is not an issue because we see the same issues involved with marriage within different races. It comes down to a huge cultural problem that needs to be addressed. One that is far, far more important than the gay marriage debate in terms of scope.

Why are black people struggling in marriage? The problem is that state intervention in marriage is acting to encourage people not to marry. When you get greater benefits for being a single mom with children, and those benefits are way higher than you would earn as a wife. This is a problem, because now the state has set up an incentive for these types of relationships. Then you have the folks growing up today, who may never have seen an actual marriage in their family - what are they going to choose?

This is why the interracial marriage rate is higher than average, because you have folks that have gotten caught in this culture getting married to those who have not.

Quote
It would help if you responded directly to be critiques.

It would help if you bothered reading my replies instead of dismissing them. But we know you don't care about what I write because you keep writing the exact same things.

Quote
1. The presence of gay marriage does not impact the divorce rate either way; or,

2. The presence of gay marriage does not impact the divorce rate sufficiently to compensate for any trends or current statuses in heterosexual marriage.

Those are different things...which has been a point I've made about five times now, minimum.

And my point is that on the face of the actual numbers, 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. That's my point here. If you're willing to concede that gay marriage doesn't actually change the numbers, then we can move onto something more productive.

Quote
Obviously, yes, you're asking me a math problem.

Thank you. That's because it is a math problem. One you already answered correctly and apparently didn't like the answer you got.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 16, 2012, 10:19:27 PM
Quote
I'd dearly like to align myself as a more traditional Anglo-Catholic within the Communion some day. It's not that I'm comfortable with the modern expression of these matters; I'm just more uncomfortable with the common alternatives that I've seen.

The door is always open.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on March 16, 2012, 11:37:58 PM
Quote
I'd dearly like to align myself as a more traditional Anglo-Catholic within the Communion some day. It's not that I'm comfortable with the modern expression of these matters; I'm just more uncomfortable with the common alternatives that I've seen.

The door is always open.


Going to Rome is one of the alternatives that I'm more uncomfortable with as things stand now, but I appreciate the offer of welcome, and--maybe, someday.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 17, 2012, 02:19:31 AM
Ben,

I'm replying to your posts in loud, public areas.  I'm sincerely not feeling that I'm missing substantive parts of your argument.  Trust me, dude, if I'm willing to sift through detailed analyses and run statistical tests, I'm willing to actually listen to what you're saying.  Tell you what: I'm going to go back in this topic and try to map out your arguments and figure out what you're saying.  I'm going to admit that this may be subject to error -- even in retrospect, I have no idea how you expected me to not think you were arguing gay marriage contributes to the "broken window" effect...absolutely no idea.

But!  At this point, any progress will have to entail some legwork on someone's part.  I don't think either of us are being intentionally spiteful here :) It will come soon, but tomorrow night is St. Patrick's, so yeah don't expect it that soon.

P.S. "Asking you to stop dating someone of the same race" does not imply government coercion in any way.  This is the sort of imprecise inference we need to avoid if we make this work.  Just saying!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: pbrower2a on March 17, 2012, 02:36:00 AM
My original material in navy.

Responding to Pbrower2A here.

Quote
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Actually, no, not the case here. I'm arguing that gay marriage does nothing to improve the already deteriorating situation. So the fallacy does not apply.


But does it make things worse?



Quote
Quote
The only threat of homosexuality to a "straight" family is if the marriage is already shaky.

Again, I am not arguing this. I am arguing that granting benefits to marriage alternatives encourages more people to choose these alternatives. We see this with common law. Elevating common law to the same legal status and recognition of marriage, encourages more people to go that route. Why?

Basic common sense. Water flows through the easiest path.

Some states recognize common-law marriages and some don't.

Quote
Quote
Some people are capable only of homosexual love.

How do you know this to be true?

Why should I contradict people whose lives so demonstrate the fact?

Quote
Quote
Prohibitions on consanguinity supposedly stop the accumulation of genetic faults -- and. worse, prevent some exploitative relationships.

So it is in the interest of the state to promote relationships that provide procreation?

As for exploitative relationships, that applies to all types of relationships, and can be used to ban any of them.

Efficient procreation is not the purpose of marriage. There's much heterosexual sex that can never result in a child... because the woman is past menopause!


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Badger on March 17, 2012, 01:33:29 PM
Quote
Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Isn't it odd how Santorum is supposed to be wild and crazy, but when you actually read what he says, he's sensible?

Should that hypoithetical situation ever arise, I'll let you know. So far, in reality, reading what he says confirms he's a crazy narrow-minded intolerant theocrat.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 17, 2012, 08:05:14 PM
Quote
I'm replying to your posts in loud, public areas.

You've done the work come to the conclusions, found evidence to support a position, and then immediately backtracked. That's what's frustrating me. There's simply no point to doing the research if it has no bearing...

Quote
Tell you what: I'm going to go back in this topic and try to map out your arguments and figure out what you're saying.

Don't bother. Just stick to what you were saying before. That's all I ask. You did have it right, then you backtracked. I have a problem with the backtracking not the work you did earlier.

Quote
P.S. "Asking you to stop dating someone of the same race" does not imply government coercion in any way.  This is the sort of imprecise inference we need to avoid if we make this work.  Just saying!

Different arguments here - and I already explained why the state does have a role in marriage.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Wisconsin+17 on March 17, 2012, 08:09:07 PM
Quote
But does it make things worse?

Oh, this is fun.

You concede the point that there is no public benefit to gay marriage?

Quote
Some states recognize common-law marriages and some don't.

And... Exactly how does that address my point?

Quote
Why should I contradict people whose lives so demonstrate the fact?

So, you have zero evidence to support your claim. Good to know.

Quote
Efficient procreation is not the purpose of marriage.

Ok, so what is the purpose of marriage?

Quote
There's much heterosexual sex that can never result in a child... because the woman is past menopause!

With all due respect, do you believe that this is an effective argument?

Let's see.

One, there's a difference between choosing to be infertile and being unable to conceive.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: pbrower2a on March 17, 2012, 11:36:46 PM
Quote
Santorum said that moral failings were the cause of the recession, not gay marriage in particular.

Isn't it odd how Santorum is supposed to be wild and crazy, but when you actually read what he says, he's sensible?

Should that hypothetical situation ever arise, I'll let you know. So far, in reality, reading what he says confirms he's a crazy narrow-minded intolerant theocrat.

Moral failings did cause the economic collapse of 2008... but those were the failings in executive suites and high places in government on issues of economic and political integrity that had no connection to homosexuality.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: nkpatel1279 on March 17, 2012, 11:51:02 PM
Gay Couples who want to get married must first enlist in the military(booty camp).


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 18, 2012, 04:14:23 AM
Quote
I'm replying to your posts in loud, public areas.

You've done the work come to the conclusions, found evidence to support a position, and then immediately backtracked. That's what's frustrating me. There's simply no point to doing the research if it has no bearing...

Quote
Tell you what: I'm going to go back in this topic and try to map out your arguments and figure out what you're saying.

Don't bother. Just stick to what you were saying before. That's all I ask. You did have it right, then you backtracked. I have a problem with the backtracking not the work you did earlier.

Quote
P.S. "Asking you to stop dating someone of the same race" does not imply government coercion in any way.  This is the sort of imprecise inference we need to avoid if we make this work.  Just saying!

Different arguments here - and I already explained why the state does have a role in marriage.

Considering that I didn't even arrive at a different position after I did the empirical research, I think you may underestimate for how long we've been talking past each other...so I'd much prefer to bother, if you don't have a substantive objection.


Title: Re: Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy
Post by: Alcon on March 26, 2012, 03:03:52 AM
Sorry, forgot to charge my computer for the car ride home from B.C. and then hit a rough spot in life obligations.  Still interested in this, Ben?