An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Stories like this make me smile because you can’t argue with numbers like that. Well, you can, but you’ll look like a hack.
Unfortunately, you can pretty easily. This one law is not the only thing to happen to scandinavia in the last two decades. You’d need to see a massive comparison of all other social and economic factors for me to really buy an effect on straight couples, unless your proposing that all these gay people were in straight marriages, which I think is a little far fetched, although it really does argue against gay marraige hurting straight marriages either. The benefits to gay monogamy and general population STD rates makes sense though.
Kevin is right that you can’t argue that because two things happen at the same time they must be linked. Correlation is much more difficult to prove. What this does prove however is that Gay marriage does not invariably lead to “the destruction of marriage”. If the religious right had made the argument that Gay marriage has “a negative effect on marriage” they would have wiggle room, since you could concievably argue that it does, but is outweighed by other, positive, factors. But they never said that, they went the whole nine yards and cornered themselves.
In any case I’ve never seen any actual logical justification for Gay’s marrying leading to the destruction of marriage. It’s always just a statement, never backed by anything greater than scripture. Justifying it with “it loses all meaning” is just another unbacked claim. Certainly the meaning changes, but the meaning of marriage has changed many times over the course of history. Love didn’t even come into the matter for a very long time, no matter how esential we think of it today.
No fault divorce laws have done far more to harm the institution of marriage than legalizing gay marriage could ever do. The horse is out of the barn and the RR is trying to lock the barn door on this one.
Still, I don’t buy the arguments about a positive correlation between legalized gay marriage and reducing promiscuous behavior that leads to STDs. Does anyone actually believe that the risk of acquiring a fatal disease doesn’t deter someone’s behavior but the ability to acquire a legal certificate to legitamize their monogamous relationship is going to have that effect? Gays are perfectly able to choose between promiscuity and monogamy right now; no one is stopping that. It’s not credible to me that legalization of gay marriage would cause a shift in promiscuous behavior.
C Stanley don’t underestimate the power of symbols. Sure, being married can be thought of as just another legal contract, with the actual commitment an entirely separate affair, but the fact is, most don’t, and that includes gays.
People don’t think the same of cheating on a girlfriend than of cheating on your wife. Though both are considered wrong, the latter is usually thought of as more serious, since you stood up one day and promised the world that you would be loyal to this person. Sure Gays can have “commitment ceremonies” but I wouldn’t be surprised if they felt less “real” than bonafide marriage. Having soceities recognition means having it’s responsibilities. I don’t know of course, but I’d be willing to bet that Gays are affected by symbols they have been taught since birth, and would be less inclined to cheat on their husband that their boyfriend.
Lynx,
While I agree there may be “power in symbols”, as you say, I don’t agree that it is a more powerful motivator than fear of death by a horrible illness. And frankly I’m not very convinced by your argument that people cheat less on spouses than they do on ‘significant others’. I think that people either have the mindset to have the moral fiber to not cheat, or they don’t. I don’t know if anyone’s ever reserached that or not, but it would be interesting if there was some way to measure the commitment level in various groups and whether the symbolism of marriage really helps people become more committed or not.
While I agree there may be “power in symbols”, as you say, I don’t agree that it is a more powerful motivator than fear of death by a horrible illness.
In some respects, all religion is “power of symbols,” and yet people of all religions kill and die because of their faith or someone else’s perceived lack of faith. The Consitution is a powerful symbol in the US, and yet people will fight, kill, and die to defend it. Scientific data has all but proven that evolution occurs and that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old, yet because this is in opposition to a literal interpretation of Genesis, people irrationally oppose some of the very science upon which our civilization is based.
Fear of death by horrible disease doesn’t stop men from sleeping around without condums because it fits their “virulent man” self-image (another type of symbol). It doesn’t stop teenage girls from having sex at 13 because “it’s cool,” even when one of their friends has a 6-month old at age 13 (and this example is based off someone my wife taught at her school).
Fundamentally, people are not rational about their symbols. As such, I have no doubt that symbols can (but don’t necessarily have to) motivate people far more powerfully than fear of death.
I do applaud your apparent belief in the inherent rationality of people, though. I wish I could share it.
Brian,
Where I differ from you is in your attribution of those actions to belief in a symbol. I would say, for example, the 13 year old girl isn’t deterred from unprotected sex because she fears rejection (by a boy, or rejection from her peer group for being too chicken to have sex). So, in that case there’s one fear trumping another (and characteristically of human nature, the more immediate fear trumps the one that has only possible long term effects: the human mind can easily rationalize that the bad thing won’t happen to me, at least not just this once).
Which is also why men can rationalize unprotected sex in spite of fear of AIDS.
In the case of the fundamentalist Christians rejecting scientific evidence of evolution, I guess I’d say there too, fear is at play. People who’ve espoused a born again mentality will cling to the beliefs that they are told they must have in order to keep their salvation. To do otherwise would be to lose their identity as well as, in their belief system, gain them eternal damnation.
So it’s not that I think people are so rational, but I do think that fear is the biggest motivator.
C Stanley you’re right about fear, fear and unhappiness. In my experience, promiscuity is mainly a function of unhappiness and self loathing regardless of orientation. People that are promiscuous often have sex with lots of people just to feel validated. I have a couple friends that are positively promiscuous (just really like sex with different people) and they are both secure, straight women. I’m not talking about the occasional affair here, but having sex with a half dozen different people a month or whatnot. The people I know that have been the worst have been bisexuals that can have a (semi)functional relationship with a woman while sleeping with lots of men because that’s who they prefer but live in constant fear they’ll get caught and never want a real relationship. Basically they are functionally gay but for societal reasons they are straight. Also, I know far more people that are either gay or bi but won’t act on it and have self destructive behavior in their relationships because of self loathing. In previous generations, this was common gay behavior as well, but in my personal experience the vast majority of people that are secure enough to be publically gay are also looking for relationships and act very similar to the average heterosexual.
I’m not saying the data is necessarily valid but the STD numbers make sense to me because the more socially accepting a society is of long term public homosexual relationships, the more secure individuals will be in examining what they truly want and trying to find companionship. (On a side note, I think it enables straight men to act more caring and easily display more of their “feminine” side without having to have it be a threat to their masculinity) Adopting gay marriage is just the last step in “social acceptance” (I don’t mean to imply moral acceptance by everyone, just that it’s ok to be open about it in the public at large) and married gays report that it has helped with familial acceptance as well.
Well, as to the whole marriage monogomy thing…. I’ll take a step back from religion and just say that CS, I think you and I agree that marriage has some sort of power. It must have something or it wouldn’t be worth anything. We might disagree on the source of that power, but I think we can agree on what that power does. It helps support lasting, loving, monogomous relationships. I don’t see why that would be any different for gay couples than straight couples.
There is a very easy way to use this to argue for the legalization of Gay Marriage, and it doesn’t involve using this as definitive proof.
At the heart of the fabled slippery slope that social conservatives love to throw at this issue is the assumption that when gay marriages are legalized, things will necessarily get worse. Divorce rates will necessarily go up; STDs and other horrible issues will necessarily become more prevalent.
While this data does not prove the validity of Gay Marriage as a social institution, it serves as a fatal counter example to the slippery slope argument upon which the likes of Rick Santorum rest their position.
Mikkel,
You make some good points and ones that I have to consider as I wrestle with my beliefs on this issue.
Kevin H: I think that the power of marriage is there before the government endorses it. Having it sanctioned is an afterthought, IMO.
Matt: I mostly agree with you, especially due to my opinion that marriage has already been so watered down by the acceptance of easy divorce, so it doesn’t much matter anymore.
oh, and I’d definately agree with Mikkel’s last paragraph. Social acceptence, which goes hand in hand with government endorsement, is what I see as the source of the power of marriage.
Kevin H (mail):
If a man made law, such as no fault divorce, can damage the institution of marriage, then why can’t another law, legalalization, help the institution?
I’m not arguing that it can’t, although I think the evidence provided for that in this article is flimsy. I think it does support the idea that the fears of destruction of the institution of marriage are false, but I’m not convinced that there would be a positive effect either (because the article didn’t prove causation)
Unfortunately, you can pretty easily. This one law is not the only thing to happen to scandinavia in the last two decades. You’d need to see a massive comparison of all other social and economic factors for me to really buy an effect on straight couples, unless your proposing that all these gay people were in straight marriages, which I think is a little far fetched, although it really does argue against gay marraige hurting straight marriages either. The benefits to gay monogamy and general population STD rates makes sense though.
Kevin is right that you can’t argue that because two things happen at the same time they must be linked. Correlation is much more difficult to prove. What this does prove however is that Gay marriage does not invariably lead to “the destruction of marriage”. If the religious right had made the argument that Gay marriage has “a negative effect on marriage” they would have wiggle room, since you could concievably argue that it does, but is outweighed by other, positive, factors. But they never said that, they went the whole nine yards and cornered themselves.
In any case I’ve never seen any actual logical justification for Gay’s marrying leading to the destruction of marriage. It’s always just a statement, never backed by anything greater than scripture. Justifying it with “it loses all meaning” is just another unbacked claim. Certainly the meaning changes, but the meaning of marriage has changed many times over the course of history. Love didn’t even come into the matter for a very long time, no matter how esential we think of it today.
No fault divorce laws have done far more to harm the institution of marriage than legalizing gay marriage could ever do. The horse is out of the barn and the RR is trying to lock the barn door on this one.
Still, I don’t buy the arguments about a positive correlation between legalized gay marriage and reducing promiscuous behavior that leads to STDs. Does anyone actually believe that the risk of acquiring a fatal disease doesn’t deter someone’s behavior but the ability to acquire a legal certificate to legitamize their monogamous relationship is going to have that effect? Gays are perfectly able to choose between promiscuity and monogamy right now; no one is stopping that. It’s not credible to me that legalization of gay marriage would cause a shift in promiscuous behavior.
C Stanley don’t underestimate the power of symbols. Sure, being married can be thought of as just another legal contract, with the actual commitment an entirely separate affair, but the fact is, most don’t, and that includes gays.
People don’t think the same of cheating on a girlfriend than of cheating on your wife. Though both are considered wrong, the latter is usually thought of as more serious, since you stood up one day and promised the world that you would be loyal to this person. Sure Gays can have “commitment ceremonies” but I wouldn’t be surprised if they felt less “real” than bonafide marriage. Having soceities recognition means having it’s responsibilities. I don’t know of course, but I’d be willing to bet that Gays are affected by symbols they have been taught since birth, and would be less inclined to cheat on their husband that their boyfriend.
Lynx,
While I agree there may be “power in symbols”, as you say, I don’t agree that it is a more powerful motivator than fear of death by a horrible illness. And frankly I’m not very convinced by your argument that people cheat less on spouses than they do on ‘significant others’. I think that people either have the mindset to have the moral fiber to not cheat, or they don’t. I don’t know if anyone’s ever reserached that or not, but it would be interesting if there was some way to measure the commitment level in various groups and whether the symbolism of marriage really helps people become more committed or not.
In some respects, all religion is “power of symbols,” and yet people of all religions kill and die because of their faith or someone else’s perceived lack of faith. The Consitution is a powerful symbol in the US, and yet people will fight, kill, and die to defend it. Scientific data has all but proven that evolution occurs and that the planet is about 4.5 billion years old, yet because this is in opposition to a literal interpretation of Genesis, people irrationally oppose some of the very science upon which our civilization is based.
Fear of death by horrible disease doesn’t stop men from sleeping around without condums because it fits their “virulent man” self-image (another type of symbol). It doesn’t stop teenage girls from having sex at 13 because “it’s cool,” even when one of their friends has a 6-month old at age 13 (and this example is based off someone my wife taught at her school).
Fundamentally, people are not rational about their symbols. As such, I have no doubt that symbols can (but don’t necessarily have to) motivate people far more powerfully than fear of death.
I do applaud your apparent belief in the inherent rationality of people, though. I wish I could share it.
Brian,
Where I differ from you is in your attribution of those actions to belief in a symbol. I would say, for example, the 13 year old girl isn’t deterred from unprotected sex because she fears rejection (by a boy, or rejection from her peer group for being too chicken to have sex). So, in that case there’s one fear trumping another (and characteristically of human nature, the more immediate fear trumps the one that has only possible long term effects: the human mind can easily rationalize that the bad thing won’t happen to me, at least not just this once).
Which is also why men can rationalize unprotected sex in spite of fear of AIDS.
In the case of the fundamentalist Christians rejecting scientific evidence of evolution, I guess I’d say there too, fear is at play. People who’ve espoused a born again mentality will cling to the beliefs that they are told they must have in order to keep their salvation. To do otherwise would be to lose their identity as well as, in their belief system, gain them eternal damnation.
So it’s not that I think people are so rational, but I do think that fear is the biggest motivator.
C Stanley you’re right about fear, fear and unhappiness. In my experience, promiscuity is mainly a function of unhappiness and self loathing regardless of orientation. People that are promiscuous often have sex with lots of people just to feel validated. I have a couple friends that are positively promiscuous (just really like sex with different people) and they are both secure, straight women. I’m not talking about the occasional affair here, but having sex with a half dozen different people a month or whatnot. The people I know that have been the worst have been bisexuals that can have a (semi)functional relationship with a woman while sleeping with lots of men because that’s who they prefer but live in constant fear they’ll get caught and never want a real relationship. Basically they are functionally gay but for societal reasons they are straight. Also, I know far more people that are either gay or bi but won’t act on it and have self destructive behavior in their relationships because of self loathing. In previous generations, this was common gay behavior as well, but in my personal experience the vast majority of people that are secure enough to be publically gay are also looking for relationships and act very similar to the average heterosexual.
There was a recent study that about 10% of the male population in NY has had gay sex in the past year, and a vast majority of those people identified themselves as straight. It is this group of men that historically have the highest rate of STD transmissions not only from promiscuity itself, but then having unprotected sex in “socially acceptable” situations because they don’t want to have stigma attached. Apparently this is a big problem in Cleveland amongst the black community, to the point where a local columnist was pleading with people to be honest with their wives/confront their husbands because their was a huge explosion of STDs in married couples.
I’m not saying the data is necessarily valid but the STD numbers make sense to me because the more socially accepting a society is of long term public homosexual relationships, the more secure individuals will be in examining what they truly want and trying to find companionship. (On a side note, I think it enables straight men to act more caring and easily display more of their “feminine” side without having to have it be a threat to their masculinity) Adopting gay marriage is just the last step in “social acceptance” (I don’t mean to imply moral acceptance by everyone, just that it’s ok to be open about it in the public at large) and married gays report that it has helped with familial acceptance as well.
Well, as to the whole marriage monogomy thing…. I’ll take a step back from religion and just say that CS, I think you and I agree that marriage has some sort of power. It must have something or it wouldn’t be worth anything. We might disagree on the source of that power, but I think we can agree on what that power does. It helps support lasting, loving, monogomous relationships. I don’t see why that would be any different for gay couples than straight couples.
There is a very easy way to use this to argue for the legalization of Gay Marriage, and it doesn’t involve using this as definitive proof.
At the heart of the fabled slippery slope that social conservatives love to throw at this issue is the assumption that when gay marriages are legalized, things will necessarily get worse. Divorce rates will necessarily go up; STDs and other horrible issues will necessarily become more prevalent.
While this data does not prove the validity of Gay Marriage as a social institution, it serves as a fatal counter example to the slippery slope argument upon which the likes of Rick Santorum rest their position.
Mikkel,
You make some good points and ones that I have to consider as I wrestle with my beliefs on this issue.
Kevin H: I think that the power of marriage is there before the government endorses it. Having it sanctioned is an afterthought, IMO.
Matt: I mostly agree with you, especially due to my opinion that marriage has already been so watered down by the acceptance of easy divorce, so it doesn’t much matter anymore.
If a man made law, such as no fault divorce, can damage the institution of marriage, then why can’t another law, legalalization, help the institution?
oh, and I’d definately agree with Mikkel’s last paragraph. Social acceptence, which goes hand in hand with government endorsement, is what I see as the source of the power of marriage.
I’m not arguing that it can’t, although I think the evidence provided for that in this article is flimsy. I think it does support the idea that the fears of destruction of the institution of marriage are false, but I’m not convinced that there would be a positive effect either (because the article didn’t prove causation)