Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Grad Students are the Worst]

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

[Sibboleth]

But why bother when he's so clearly just a cretinous fyckwit?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

But why bother when he's so clearly just a cretinous fyckwit?

I don't think he is, I'm just dumbfounded

[Torie]

When you boys are done having fun, you might find some "real" explanations for the disheveled state of the family unit in this book. 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.

[freepcrusher]

When you boys are done having fun, you might find some "real" explanations for the disheveled state of the family unit in this book. 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.

[Sam Spade]

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.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

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!

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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.

If not, why prohibit it?

Again, we've dealt with this argument before. Why permit it? What benefit does it bring?

Hey, because if gay marriage makes people happy

So would removing restrictions on consanguinity.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

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.)

[Grad Students are the Worst]

bump...because, even after thinking about it pretty thoroughly today, this rationale still seems completely intractable/bewildering to me.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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.

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.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

(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)?

[Torie]

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?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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.

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.

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. 

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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?

[Torie]

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?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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?

[Torie]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

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.

[Torie]

"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.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Thanks Torie for the stimulating discussion that was well worth my time.

Appreciate it. We should do it again sometime.