Gay marriage will cause 900,000 abortions

[7,052,770]

I think most liberal straight couples who get married in Gay Jim Crow states feel a little guilty about it. I sure did.

I yearn for the Supreme Court (or 5th Circuit, which I guess isn't going to ever render a decision) to absolve me of my guilt.

Look for an uptick in straight marriages in June as liberal straight couples who are more into big symbolic gestures than I am can finally marry with a clean conscience.

[SteveRogers]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

The question is:  will the meaning attached to this in the form of marriage itself continue to be gendered?  There are two courses that could be taken with the existence of same-sex marriage:  either 1) the cultural associations with marriage will be stripped of any gendered character in its language, social expectations, ritual and imagery, or 2) we will see the development of parallel genderings, parallel cultural forms that characterize same gender marriages on the one hand and opposite gender marriages on the other.  The first of these I would expect could be potentially detrimental to the institution of marriage because it will sap the institution of some of its symbolic influence.  The second on the other hand could strengthen and reinforce the institution by adding new perspectives to the marriage tradition's cultural heritage.   We can expect to see some combination of the two opposing trends, but how this will develop we don't yet know.   

Meanwhile, there is also a risk to marriage from the continued lack of same sex marriage within the present context. If the institution is seen as exclusive, this could enhance the perception in some parts of society that it is outdated, and so we could expect to see some increase in less formal, less stable arrangements in its place.

What do you mean by "gendered"? I'm not understanding what the actual difference between the two cases you discuss would look like.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

The question is:  will the meaning attached to this in the form of marriage itself continue to be gendered?  There are two courses that could be taken with the existence of same-sex marriage:  either 1) the cultural associations with marriage will be stripped of any gendered character in its language, social expectations, ritual and imagery, or 2) we will see the development of parallel genderings, parallel cultural forms that characterize same gender marriages on the one hand and opposite gender marriages on the other.  The first of these I would expect could be potentially detrimental to the institution of marriage because it will sap the institution of some of its symbolic influence.  The second on the other hand could strengthen and reinforce the institution by adding new perspectives to the marriage tradition's cultural heritage.   We can expect to see some combination of the two opposing trends, but how this will develop we don't yet know.   

Meanwhile, there is also a risk to marriage from the continued lack of same sex marriage within the present context. If the institution is seen as exclusive, this could enhance the perception in some parts of society that it is outdated, and so we could expect to see some increase in less formal, less stable arrangements in its place.

One  can always theorize about what people will do,  but is it not fair to say that the burden of proof is on the side of those arguing against conferring a right on some group, and that burden must be met by adducing into evidence real and persuasive data? Isn't this burden particularly salient to meet when, as is the case with most of us here on this issue, that the theorized predicted behavior change seems far fetched? Is there any evidence at all that SSM where it has been legalized has actually caused a decline in the marriage rate?

The burden of proof depends on how fundamental the right claim is supposed to be. If marrying the partner of your choice is such a fundamental right that it requires a compelling interest to limit, then the burden of proof is on those who say that society has a compelling interest to limit it, so speculation is probably not enough. If the standard is rational basis instead, then speculation is enough because speculation is a form of rational evaluation.  There's no reason to insist that if there is an effect of a change in the definition of marriage it will be apparent in a matter of months and years rather than on the order a generational change, so at this point speculation is what we have to go on to consider its long-term effects.

In the words of the Talking Heads, you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. 

People don't get married because of their conception of the institution of marriage.  They get married because of their close, intimate, loving relationship with another person.  So, gender always matters, because a lesbian and a hetero man like ladies, and a gay man and a hetero lady like men.  Right?  And, people don't really take their social cues entirely from the law.  Honestly, I can't think of any situation where a straight person would choose not to get married because of same-sex marriage being legal. 

The Talking Heads said a great deal even if some found their lyrics obscure.

In some cultural contexts people get married when they have a close, intimate, loving relationship. In some contexts, they don't. In some contexts, people get married for other reasons - such as, for example, a girl is pregnant and so man up and do the right thing and be a father (this is an example of a gendered discourse). If it were completely based on the feelings in an individual relationship and the concept of marriage did not enter into it, we could not speak of the cultural qualities of marriage, but this is a thing that anthropologists and sociologists have been involved in since the beginnings of their disciplines.

[bedstuy]

In the words of the Talking Heads, you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. 

People don't get married because of their conception of the institution of marriage.  They get married because of their close, intimate, loving relationship with another person.  So, gender always matters, because a lesbian and a hetero man like ladies, and a gay man and a hetero lady like men.  Right?  And, people don't really take their social cues entirely from the law.  Honestly, I can't think of any situation where a straight person would choose not to get married because of same-sex marriage being legal. 

The Talking Heads said a great deal even if some found their lyrics obscure.

In some cultural contexts people get married when they have a close, intimate, loving relationship. In some contexts, they don't. In some contexts, people get married for other reasons - such as, for example, a girl is pregnant and so man up and do the right thing and be a father (this is an example of a gendered discourse). If it were completely based on the feelings in an individual relationship and the concept of marriage did not enter into it, we could not speak of the cultural qualities of marriage, but this is a thing that anthropologists and sociologists have been involved in since the beginnings of their disciplines.

I'm not following you down that rabbit hole buddy.  Things could theoretically affect other things therefore...  How is that a valid argument for anything?

Let's just take this back to reality and out of your abstract universe of imagination.  You said that the legalization of gay marriage will have a substantial affect on the marriage rate among heterosexuals.  This a hypothesis.  Support it, please.

On the contrary, we have evidence from states where gay marriage became legal in the past.