Originally Posted By jonvn "You, on the other hand, have nothing to suggest there would not be harm, except for your belief." I pointed out why it was rejected, because it shows no causation at all. None. It's like "Oh, the sky is blue, so marriage is going down." One has nothing to do with the other. Show that there would be no harm? Explain why there would be. There is simply no reason to expect there would be harm. Aside from the fact that marriage rates are going down anyway, and out of wedlock births are skyrocketing even without gay marriage. To hook the two together is baseless.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I pointed out why it was rejected, because it shows no causation at all.> It's your belief it showed no causation. I believe it showed plenty of causation, since I am unaware of any other explanation for what the study shows. Things happen for a reason, and the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. <Aside from the fact that marriage rates are going down anyway, and out of wedlock births are skyrocketing even without gay marriage.> But they are going down (or up, as the case may be) more in places that have allowed gay marriage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's your belief it showed no causation. I believe it showed plenty of causation, since I am unaware of any other explanation for what the study shows.> Unaware? More like "refuse to see." As was pointed out to you at the time, a more logical link was the fact that these same countries are instituting policies that grant many or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to STRAIGHT couples who co-habitate. Therefore there is less reason for these straight couples to marry than there was before. This makes much more sense as a causative factor than the fact that the gay couple down the street now CAN get married. <Things happen for a reason, and the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.> Indeed.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You've said that before, but you're wrong.>> <I disagree.> Okay, here's a perfect example. You disagree, but don't back that up with anything. I posted a paragraph to show WHY you were wrong; you neither addressed that, nor posted nothing to show why anyone should believe your point of view. The paragraph again - can you show why anything in here is not true? "SCOTUS specifically referred to marriage in its decision. And states who had previously defined marriages as only between same-race people (and had issued licenses based on that definition) had to change that definition and issue licenses based on the new one."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As was pointed out to you at the time, a more logical link was the fact that these same countries are instituting policies that grant many or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to STRAIGHT couples who co-habitate.> I'm pretty sure that point was countered by evidence that the same thing was happening in countries that didn't do that. I'll double check that when I have time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I posted a paragraph to show WHY you were wrong; you neither addressed that, nor posted nothing to show why anyone should believe your point of view.> Your paragraph didn't show why I was wrong. It didn't show that Virginia changed its marriage laws due to Loving Vs Virginia. The fact that the Supreme Court referrenced marriage in the decision is irrelevant, as is what you assert happened in other states.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<As was pointed out to you at the time, a more logical link was the fact that these same countries are instituting policies that grant many or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to STRAIGHT couples who co-habitate.>> <I'm pretty sure that point was countered by evidence that the same thing was happening in countries that didn't do that. I'll double check that when I have time.> Please do. I don't believe you'll find that. The stats we discussed most at the time were definitely from countries that did both. <Your paragraph didn't show why I was wrong. It didn't show that Virginia changed its marriage laws due to Loving Vs Virginia.> Of course they did. Virginia had for years refused to issue licenses to interracial couples who sought one; after the ruling, it could no longer do so. <The fact that the Supreme Court referrenced marriage in the decision is irrelevant,> It is not irrelevant just because you say so. In fact, because this is a supreme court decision, the fact that they mentioned it makes it relevant to subsequent law. <as is what you assert happened in other states.> Nope. Same as Virginia. They once refused to grant licenses to interracial couples; then they couldn't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Of course it did. Before Loving, interracial couples denied marriage licenses, quite legally. After Loving, state must issue licenses to interracial couples. This is a change in the law.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Please do. I don't believe you'll find that. The stats we discussed most at the time were definitely from countries that did both.> No, they weren't. As I thought, Stanley Kurtz dealt with this issue, and I'm sure I linked to his argument. Here's an essay where he talks about the links between registration of cohabiting heterosexuals and the decline of marriage and childbirth: <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNlNWYxNmZjMjVjNjEzYjdhODAwYmFiYTUwMWQyMTM=" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview. com/?q=NmNlNWYxNmZjMjVjNjEzYjdhODAwYmFiYTUwMWQyMTM=</a> Here's the most relevant part: "But if you want to see the causal force of same-sex partnerships disentangled from other factors, look to the Netherlands. In Holland, unlike Scandinavia, there was little or no pre-existing practice of parental cohabitation when same-sex partnerships were introduced. So the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate accelerated at double-speed under the impact of the change. The Dutch case is like a natural laboratory that allows us to isolate the causal effect that began in Sweden in 1987." <Before Loving, interracial couples denied marriage licenses, quite legally. After Loving, state must issue licenses to interracial couples. This is a change in the law.> No, it's a striking down of a separate law. It didn't change the basic marriage law, nor did it change the definition of marriage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Please do. I don't believe you'll find that. The stats we discussed most at the time were definitely from countries that did both.>> <No, they weren't.> Yes, they were. As I thought, Stanley Kurtz dealt with this issue, and I'm sure I linked to his argument. Here's an essay where he talks about the links between registration of cohabiting heterosexuals and the decline of marriage and childbirth: <a href="http://article.nationalreview" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview</a>. com/?q=NmNlNWYxNmZjMjVjNjEzYjdhODAwYmFiYTUwMWQyMTM= Here's the most relevant part: "But if you want to see the causal force of same-sex partnerships disentangled from other factors, look to the Netherlands. In Holland, unlike Scandinavia, there was little or no pre-existing practice of parental cohabitation when same-sex partnerships were introduced. So the Dutch out-of-wedlock birthrate accelerated at double-speed under the impact of the change. The Dutch case is like a natural laboratory that allows us to isolate the causal effect that began in Sweden in 1987."> Okay, but that's not addressing what I talked about, which was not the existence or non-existence of straight co-habitation, but the treating of it legally as nearly akin to marriage. Kurtz' logic is flawed even in his argument - he makes the common mistake that correlation must equal causation, which is not true, i.e. these things happened at about the same time, therefore gay marriage must be the cause - but at any rate, it doesn't address the more salient point, the treating of straight cohabitation as more akin to marriage. THIS is what makes sense as to why straight people might not choose to get married as much. If they're receiving most or all of the benefits, and don't have the religious impulse to get married (which is often the case in northern Europe), then why do it? This is far more logical than attributing it to the fact that gay people now CAN get married. If these countries had kept marriage and cohabitation legally distinct, I have no doubt we would not have seen the decline in marriage there. And this brings up an important point for possible effects in the US. There is no widespread movement to make straight co-habitation and marriage indistinct in the US. Only to allow gay people into marriage. So as long as marriage and non-marriage is kept distinct (and I think they should be), the experience here would be quite different. <<Before Loving, interracial couples denied marriage licenses, quite legally. After Loving, state must issue licenses to interracial couples. This is a change in the law.>> <No, it's a striking down of a separate law. It didn't change the basic marriage law, nor did it change the definition of marriage. > The striking down of a law that previously applied to all people in Virginia IS a change in the law, Einstein. Just as the striking down of Jim Crow laws was a change in the law, and affected all sorts of other laws as to what was and was not permissible any more. And if Virginia could refuse licenses to interracial couples prior to Loving, and after Loving could not, then the definition of who was a legitimate married couple (and therefore the definition of a legitimate marriage) DID change. Sorry.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Kurtz' logic is flawed even in his argument - he makes the common mistake that correlation must equal causation> No, he doesn't. But he does recognize that things happen for a reason, and you can compare what happens in one area with one set of circumstances with another area with another set of circumstances and isolate the principal things that caused an effect. <And if Virginia could refuse licenses to interracial couples prior to Loving, and after Loving could not, then the definition of who was a legitimate married couple (and therefore the definition of a legitimate marriage) DID change.> Again, you're just repeating something I've already disagreed with.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Kurtz' logic is flawed even in his argument - he makes the common mistake that correlation must equal causation>> <No, he doesn't.> Yes, he does. <But he does recognize that things happen for a reason, and you can compare what happens in one area with one set of circumstances with another area with another set of circumstances and isolate the principal things that caused an effect.> Which is a fancy way of trying to legitimize his logical flaw. Sorry, but if, (say), the Netherlands raised their tax rates and the marriage rate went down, and the same thing happened in Sweden, you could with similar logic say that it was due to the tax rates. Correlation does not equal causation. You'd LIKE to pin it on gay marriage, but he does not show cause, and it makes no logical sense anyway - the near-equalization of marriage and co-habitation makes much more. <<And if Virginia could refuse licenses to interracial couples prior to Loving, and after Loving could not, then the definition of who was a legitimate married couple (and therefore the definition of a legitimate marriage) DID change.>> <Again, you're just repeating something I've already disagreed with.> You can disagree all you want, but you're simply wrong. If a law if struck, is that not a change in the law? Answer me that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You'd LIKE to pin it on gay marriage, but he does not show cause, and it makes no logical sense anyway - the near-equalization of marriage and co-habitation makes much more.> But it doesn't. In the Netherlands, cohabitation and marriage were legally equalized in the 1980's, but it wasn't until gay marriage was recognized that the rate of parental cohabitation jumped up. So far, every country that has recognized gay marriage has seen marriages and birtrates go down, and out-of-wedlock births and dependence on the government go up. <If a law if struck, is that not a change in the law?> It's a change for that law, but not for any others.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You'd LIKE to pin it on gay marriage, but he does not show cause, and it makes no logical sense anyway - the near-equalization of marriage and co-habitation makes much more.>> <But it doesn't. In the Netherlands, cohabitation and marriage were legally equalized in the 1980's,> I don't think that's true. I think cohabitating straights got SOME of the same rights/responsibilities of marriage in the 80's, but this was expanded later. <but it wasn't until gay marriage was recognized that the rate of parental cohabitation jumped up.> Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation... <So far, every country that has recognized gay marriage has seen marriages and birtrates go down, and out-of-wedlock births and dependence on the government go up.> Now we're causing "dependence on the government??" Wow, is there no social ill gay marriage can't bring on?! LOL! That right there reveals you. AFAIK, every government that has recognized gay marriage has also come closer to equalizing straight marriage and cohabitation. And AFAIK, every country that recognizes gay marriage also has RU-486 available. Could THAT account for the lowered birthrate? Who knows, but it makes as much sense. Correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation... What I think WOULD be interesting is to see if gay marriage has an effect on how long gay couples stay together on average. Unless, of course, we don't count for anything. <<If a law if struck, is that not a change in the law?>> <It's a change for that law, but not for any others. > Then it's a change in the law. Thank you. It's also a change in any law that stemmed from it. So, for instance, if the law that allowed Virginia to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples is struck, and those marriages are now legal and recognized in Virginia, then those couples can now file joint tax returns, for instance.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation...> If you can show another cause that correlates, then do it. <Now we're causing "dependence on the government??"> More single parent households tend to mean more people on the dole. <What I think WOULD be interesting is to see if gay marriage has an effect on how long gay couples stay together on average.> Unfortunately, proponents of gay marriage don't seem to be in favor of gathering facts that would make their case and presenting them. It's almost as though they know the facts won't make their case, and figure they need to appeal to emotion instead. <Then it's a change in the law.> You're playing semantics. It didn't change the definition of marriage.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation...>> <If you can show another cause that correlates, then do it.> Already did present one that makes more sense. I also acknowledge that there could be many reasons why marriage rates could be dropping. The decreasing importance of religion in northern Europe and the drop in chuch attendance over the past couple of decades makes easily as much sense for that as the fact that gay people can now marry. Was that "the" cause? I'm not saying so, because - repeat after me - correlation does not equal causation. <<Now we're causing "dependence on the government??">> <More single parent households tend to mean more people on the dole.> Most gay people who adopt tend to be couples. Please don't blame us for single-parent straights. <<What I think WOULD be interesting is to see if gay marriage has an effect on how long gay couples stay together on average.>> <Unfortunately, proponents of gay marriage don't seem to be in favor of gathering facts that would make their case and presenting them.> You have no evidence on that. You pulled that out of the air. <It's almost as though they know the facts won't make their case, and figure they need to appeal to emotion instead.> Just the opposite. It's people who oppose it who appeal to emotion and the proprietary attitude towards "the M-word." <<Then it's a change in the law.>> <You're playing semantics.> No, I'm not. You tried to claim that when a law is struck down, the law as a whole doesn't change. (Me: "This is a change in the law." You: "No, it's a striking down of a separate law."). I wouldn't let you get away with that. <It didn't change the definition of marriage. > Yes it did. Before Loving, Virigina could define marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race. After Loving, that changed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Already did present one that makes more sense.> Except, as I pointed out, it didn't apply to the Netherlands. Plus even you admit that countries that recognize gay marriage tend to also equate cohabitation with marriage. <Was that "the" cause?> It's a cause. But since that has occurred in countries that have not recognized gay marriages, we can see how different things have affected others. Places that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage. <I'm not saying so, because - repeat after me - correlation does not equal causation.> You don't need to repeat it, as I agree with it. However, I also know that causation equals causation. <You have no evidence on that.> The lack of evidence is the evidence. <You tried to claim that when a law is struck down, the law as a whole doesn't change.> No, I didn't. <Before Loving, Virigina could define marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race. After Loving, that changed.> That's a distortion of what happened.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Already did present one that makes more sense.>> <Except, as I pointed out, it didn't apply to the Netherlands.> Except, as I pointed out, I don't think you have your facts straight. <Plus even you admit that countries that recognize gay marriage tend to also equate cohabitation with marriage.> Which doesn't mean we would, nor do I think we should. I think marriage should remain distinct, but that gay citizens ought to be accorded equal access to it. <<Was that "the" cause?>> <It's a cause. But since that has occurred in countries that have not recognized gay marriages, we can see how different things have affected others. Places that have recognized gay marriages and have experienced a drop in church going have seen a greater decrease in marriage and a greater increase in out-of-wedlock births than those places that have experienced a drop in church going but not recognized gay marriage.> And where did those stats come from? Care to provide them? Did those latter countries also equalize marriage and straight co-habitation? Also, a decline in marriage due to the fact that straight couples can gain all the rights and responsibilities without getting married would itself lead to a rise in out of wedlock births. Plus, I think the out of wedlock birth rate is considerably lower in Spain, which has gay marriage, than in the US which doesn't. Which would pretty much ruin your attempt to link the two. Repeat after me, kids: correlation does not equal causation. <<I'm not saying so, because - repeat after me - correlation does not equal causation.>> <You don't need to repeat it, as I agree with it. However, I also know that causation equals causation.> That's nice. But you haven't shown a shred of causation. <<You have no evidence on that.>> <The lack of evidence is the evidence.> That may be a new low for you. Well, maybe not, but it's up there. All I did was muse on whether gay marriage contributed to the longevity of gay couples. Since no government I know of kept stats on gay couples' longevity prior to marriage, this is impossible to know. You leap from that to gay couples "don't seem to be interested in gathering facts," which is cheap and weasly. <<You tried to claim that when a law is struck down, the law as a whole doesn't change.>> <No, I didn't.> Yes, you did. Me: "This is a change in the law." You: "No, it's a striking down of a separate law." What was the "no" supposed to mean if you weren't disagreeing with my assertion that it was a change in the law? Also, I pointed out that marriage laws by their nature change others, such as tax laws. <Before Loving, Virigina could define marriage as being between a man and a woman of the same race. After Loving, that changed.>> <That's a distortion of what happened.> You love to say things like that, and hope that counts as a rebuttal, but it doesn't because you can't back it up. So let's go: what in that paragraph is untrue or distorted? Be specific.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't think you have your facts straight.> But you don't know, do you? <I think marriage should remain distinct, but that gay citizens ought to be accorded equal access to it.> Then you should work toward changing the law via the democratic process, rather than on overturning the law via the courts. <And where did those stats come from?> I've posted Stanley Kurtz articles where he clearly states where they come from, as well as how he has come to the conclusions he has. <I think the out of wedlock birth rate is considerably lower in Spain, which has gay marriage, than in the US which doesn't. Which would pretty much ruin your attempt to link the two.> Of course it doesn't, because we're talking about changes in rates, not overall rates. <But you haven't shown a shred of causation.> Sure I have. I'm beginning to think you haven't bothered reading any of the articles I've linked to over the years. <What was the "no" supposed to mean if you weren't disagreeing with my assertion that it was a change in the law?> I was disagreeing with your assertion that I ever claimed it wasn't a change in the law as a whole. What I said was that it wasn't a change in the definition of marriage. <You love to say things like that, and hope that counts as a rebuttal, but it doesn't because you can't back it up.> Just as you can't back up your original statement. You want to prove me wrong, show me what the Virgina law was that defined marriage before Loving, and what it was afterward.
