Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Because the situations aren’t exactly analogous, so why tie your hands in trying to design something? You could make it harder or easier, depending on what you’re trying to incentivize.
[/quote]

If you’re going to promote same sex unions, clearly you’re not trying to make it harder. You would only do so if it benefited the couple without hurting society, and ideally if it also directly benefited society.

Given that, there is no reason same sex couples shouldn’t enjoy the same rights as straight couples. The same “incentives” encourage both unions, and should exist for both.

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That may be what we should assume as a matter of statistics - and for the purpose of science.[/quote]

I’m glad you recognize this.

However, policy making is not science, and should not be treated as if it is.

To be fair, policy making should be informed by science. Making policies based on falsehoods is disingenuous and is more likely to be detrimental to society in the long run.

If you don’t base policy decisions on facts, what alternative do you have? Lacking the truth you can only base the decisions on biases, stereotypes, and misguided beliefs.

Catastrophizing based on conjecture serves nobody. To use your global warming example, how much sense does it make to pour millions of dollars into protecting society from the threats of global warming unless there is scientific evidence that humans are contributing to the global warming crisis?

By the same standard, denying gays the right to marry out of the ungrounded fear that doing so would hurt heterosexual marriage would similarly make no sense.

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The condensed explanation is that any further weakening to the rate of formation, or increase in the rate of destruction, of traditional marriages would be less beneficial to society (mostly via effects on kids, and then their effects on society) - and that due to the relative sizes of the respective populations (heterosexuals v homosexuals), such negative effects would swamp any positive effects for homosexuals.[/quote]

Let me see if I can summarize this correctly before addressing it. You are proposing:

Hypothesis 1
Allowing gay couples to marry would decrease the number of straight couples that marry.

Hypothesis 2
Allowing gay couples to marry would increase the number of divorces among straight couples.

Is this a fair summary of what you consider to be your major objection to gay marriage?

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My problem with it is not that it produces no benefits to anyone, but that it endangers an institution that is far more important to society, and the benefits do not outweigh the risks and costs.[/quote]

Ok, so you acknowledge that gay marriage could have positive benefits. But when you do the math, you believe that the costs don’t justify the benefits that would be achieved.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You said all consenting adults relationships are of equal worth - as such, under your rights-theory, there is no qualitative difference and all deserve the right of marriage.[/quote]

The qualitative difference is not in the worth of the relationship. It is in the administrative ability to grant that worth to every relationship. It is a qualitative difference not in the principle itself, but in the application of the principle.

Remember the collapsed mine example? John the Miner is buried under so much rock that it is impossible to extract him before the air runs out. Mark the Miner is also buried under rock, but not so far that he is beyond our ability to extract in time. In both cases, the principle of compassion requires saving the miner. However, the application of the principle is different for the two cases. There is a qualitative difference between the two cases, not in principle but in application.

Nobody would argue that because you are unable to apply the principle equally in both cases, the only fair solution is to apply the principle in neither case. John the Miner is beyond our help and nothing we do can change that. But that doesn’t mean we should turn our back on Mark the Miner. Doing so would violate the very principle we are trying to enact.

Saving Mark the Miner isn’t “arbitrary”, nor does it make him of “greater worth” than John the Miner. It is a reflection of people doing what they can to help who they can. If it were at all possible to help John the Miner, he would be saved too.

Your premise may not be true on the basis that it encourages children in relationships outside of the biological parents - which we don’t want to do.

How would gay marriage encourage children in relationships outside of the biological parents?

is foster care categorically bad? Maybe it is - but you assume away the argument that it might be fine.

I think most experts would agree that a child is generally better off raised by a loving couple that can meet their needs, rather than being raised in a foster care facility. If that weren’t the case, people wouldn’t be allowed to adopt in the first place.

we don’t know what the conclusion will be, so based on what we know, is it worth it to experiment when the stakes are so high?

See my comments earlier regarding science, the null hypothesis, and the dangers of catastrophizing based on misconceptions rather than facts.

You don’t have to agree, but my conclusions are based on an “open mind” - I have examined the arguments on both sides, and come down on the side that makes the most sense to me.

Would it be fair then, to say that you don’t have any moral qualms about gay marriage? Is your objection entirely based on the belief that gay marriage would have a net negative effect on society, rather than the belief that homosexuality is a sin, a perversion, or otherwise inherently repellant to you?

It’s curious that me thinking gay marriage is not a great idea is “insisting” without an open mind, but should I get closer and closer to your opinion on the matter, I’m more and more “open minded”?

Not at all. As I said earlier, I am very honest about not having an open mind. No matter what happens, I am going to push for the right to marry my partner because it is important to me and would benefit my children. I’m just curious if you similarly admit to not having an open mind, or if you genuinely believe that you do have an open mind.

Translated: it isn’t worth the risk to find out.

See my comments earlier regarding science, the null hypothesis, and the dangers of catastrophizing based on misconceptions rather than facts.

Further: See the fact that gay marriage hasn’t hurt straight marriages in Massachusetts or California. Not a long term study yet, but promising at least in the short term.

Why this insistence on trying to go back to the original question nearly every single response you write?

Because I’m genuinely trying to understand how an open minded person could reach the conclusion that my partner and I getting married would affect their marriage in any way, shape, or form. All I see so far is a lot of conjecture about what could happpen, without any basis in established scientific facts.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The condensed explanation is that any further weakening to the rate of formation, or increase in the rate of destruction, of traditional marriages would be less beneficial to society (mostly via effects on kids, and then their effects on society) - and that due to the relative sizes of the respective populations (heterosexuals v homosexuals), such negative effects would swamp any positive effects for homosexuals.

forlife wrote:
Let me see if I can summarize this correctly before addressing it. You are proposing:

Hypothesis 1
Allowing gay couples to marry would decrease the number of straight couples that marry.

Hypothesis 2
Allowing gay couples to marry would increase the number of divorces among straight couples.

Is this a fair summary of what you consider to be your major objection to gay marriage?[/quote]

Sort of, but not precise enough. Breaking what I think is the biggest problem with incorporating homosexuals into heterosexual marriage into two sub parts:

1. Given our current knowledge, the risk that allowing gay couples to marry would decrease the number of straight marriages that were formed appears non-trivial and cannot be dismissed, and the potential damage effected on society if that were to occur would be large.

2. Given our current knowledge, the risk that allowing gay couples to marry would increase the number of straight marriages that end in divorce (or annulment or just abandonment, but predominantly divorce) appears non-trivila and cannot be dismissed, and the potential damage effected on society if that were to occur would be large.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
However, policy making is not science, and should not be treated as if it is.

forlife wrote:
To be fair, policy making should be informed by science. Making policies based on falsehoods is disingenuous and is more likely to be detrimental to society in the long run.[/quote]

It’s not a falsehood. It’s a hypothesis that has not been either proved or disproved. I’m sure you’re familiar with many such hypotheses in physics - like quantum mechanics and string theory.

When you have an event whose happening is a non-trivial probability and whose harm would be great, it would be tantamount to criminal recklessness to just ignore it or assume it out of existence.

[quote]
forelife wrote:
If you don’t base policy decisions on facts, what alternative do you have? Lacking the truth you can only base the decisions on biases, stereotypes, and misguided beliefs. [/quote]

You fail to note that your “fact” is an assumption. We have established occurrences of the weakening of traditional marriage that are coincident with the adoption of homosexual marriage. Cause is not defined. Thus it is unknown. Thus the conclusion that homosexual marriage is not causing the effect is not a fact. The fact that the correlation has been repeatedly observed across many countries that have adopted homosexual marriage should imply there is likely some sort of causal relationship there - whether it be common causation, A causing B or B causing A. Established cause? No. But the weight of the current evidence is suggestive of some causal relationship.

Sorry that it doesn’t jibe with your preferred worldview.

[quote]
forelife wrote:
Catastrophizing based on conjecture serves nobody. To use your global warming example, how much sense does it make to pour millions of dollars into protecting society from the threats of global warming unless there is scientific evidence that humans are contributing to the global warming crisis? [/quote]

It depends on the cost-benefit analysis. Something like Kyoto doesn’t seem to have the proper benefits to justify the costs, particularly on a future discount. But the potential costs are so huge that doing investments in alternative technologies or other such fixes make sense. What doesn’t make sense is just assuming it away.

forelife wrote:
By the same standard, denying gays the right to marry out of the ungrounded fear that doing so would hurt heterosexual marriage would similarly make no sense.

First: Semantics here, but it’s not a right. Second, it would if you couldn’t dismiss the risk, which you can’t - thus not “ungrounded”. Merely unproved. See above.

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:
Because the situations aren’t exactly analogous, so why tie your hands in trying to design something? You could make it harder or easier, depending on what you’re trying to incentivize.

forlife wrote:
If you’re going to promote same sex unions, clearly you’re not trying to make it harder. You would only do so if it benefited the couple without hurting society, and ideally if it also directly benefited society.

Given that, there is no reason same sex couples shouldn’t enjoy the same rights as straight couples. The same “incentives” encourage both unions, and should exist for both.

Think about it for a second. Within marriage you have two goals that are working at cross-purposes. You want to encourage their formation, but you also want them to last. To the extent that you include incentives to formation, and penalties for break-ups, you have two forces pushing in opposite directions. The inclusion of penalties increases the cost of entering into the marriage status in the first instance, thus acting as a disincentive to formation.

Heterosexual marriage currently is balanced a bit more in favor of formation incentives - the penalties on divorce have been lessened.

No reason homosexual marriage needs to follow that precise formula - they can create a different balance between the two forces.

Just picking “the same,” for the sake of “the same,” doesn’t seem very rational.

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

1. Given our current knowledge, the risk that allowing gay couples to marry would decrease the number of straight marriages that were formed appears non-trivial and cannot be dismissed, and the potential damage effected on society if that were to occur would be large.

2. Given our current knowledge, the risk that allowing gay couples to marry would increase the number of straight marriages that end in divorce (or annulment or just abandonment, but predominantly divorce) appears non-trivila and cannot be dismissed, and the potential damage effected on society if that were to occur would be large.[/quote]

Didn’t we agree that current knowledge does not support either of these hypotheses? The null hypothesis hasn’t been rejected. We simply don’t know yet. Where we disagreed was whether the mere possibility of the hypotheses being true warranted refusing gays the right to marry.

Setting aside “current knowledge”, I’m curious what you propose to be the underlying mechanism for the above ideas.

I don’t understand why you think allowing gay couples to marry would decrease the number of straight marriages?

And why do you think allowing gay marriages would increase the divorce rate among straight couples?

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:
That is the essence of the function of the judiciary. To interpret the law in cases in which it’s not clear what it meant, or how it would apply to novel circumstances.

forlife wrote:
You know as well as I do that a judge’s political views and values frame the view of whether or not a decision is constitutionally justified. Most judges, regardless of liberal/conservative bent, believe that they are genuinely representing the principles and intent of the Constitution. Whether it is more appropriate to follow the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law depends on the judge’s perspective.

I’m willing to grant that judges in both camps are sincere, but you seem to demonize those judges that reach decisions that disagree with your personal views. Only those that you agree with are acting properly, right?[/quote]

It’s not about results; it’s about process. And judges who make stuff up aren’t following the proper process, and are subverting our entire Constitutional system.

Only those who follow the original public meaning of the written Constitution passed via supermajority approval are acting properly. Whether that process leads to the outcome I would prefer is irrelevant. Process matters. The only reason the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and can displace normal legislation is that the Constitution was passed via supermajority votes. Judges usurping the power to amend the Constitution make a mockery of our system - and essentially create a judicial oligopoly, limited only by their inability to enforce what they create.

Yes, a judges personal views may enter into a decision - but that should only happen in cases where there is real ambiguity, or in application of a principle. It should never happen that a judge uses his own views to create new law.

The whole “letter vs. spirit” thing is interesting. What is the “spirit” of the law? Whatever the judge(s) decide(s) it is? That’s judicial usurpation of lawmaking power. Lawmaking is the function of the political branches, not the judiciary.

Activist judges are one of the biggest problems with our current government. The others, IMHO, are unelected agencies wielding essentially lawmaking powers via rulemaking and gerrymandered electoral districts. Our government is not nearly as representative as it should be - as it is designed to be.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

You have the right to life and liberty of course. What you do not have the right to is a set of government benefits.

forlife wrote:
Not according to the California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts. If I were a citizen of either state, I would be entitled to those same rights regardless of what you might claim the Constitution requires.[/quote]

Again, it doesn’t seem you know what you’re talking about. No you wouldn’t. Those courts’ decisions have no bearing whatsoever on federal tax and social security rules. So their making stuff up doesn’t muck up the entire federal system - just state law in CA and MA.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I will not be not probing the subjective motivations of judges. To identify a decision as an instance of liberal judicial activism does not necessarily mean that I am alleging that the judges responsible for the decision have indulged, deliberately or otherwise, their own policy preferences, though I certainly believe that often to be the case. It might instead be that they misconceive the judicial role or that they simply err.

forlife wrote:
The identical criticism could be applied to conservative judges, and anyone with a fair mindset could see that. Both conservative and liberal judges are human beings that are subject to human biases, and it is naive to claim otherwise.

So for the purposes of his weekly column Ed Whelan doesn’t want to assume mindset for the judges, so he attributes their problems with making stuff up to either malfeasance, error or misconception of role. That “making stuff up” part doesn’t apply to judges who apply originalist principles.

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:

1. Given our current knowledge, the risk that allowing gay couples to marry would decrease the number of straight marriages that were formed appears non-trivial and cannot be dismissed, and the potential damage effected on society if that were to occur would be large.

2. Given our current knowledge, the risk that allowing gay couples to marry would increase the number of straight marriages that end in divorce (or annulment or just abandonment, but predominantly divorce) appears non-trivila and cannot be dismissed, and the potential damage effected on society if that were to occur would be large.

forlife wrote:
Didn’t we agree that current knowledge does not support either of these hypotheses? [/quote]

No, we agreed that these current hypotheses were neither proved nor disproved.

[quote]forlife wrote:
The null hypothesis hasn’t been rejected. We simply don’t know yet. Where we disagreed was whether the mere possibility of the hypotheses being true warranted refusing gays the right to marry.[/quote]

So I am telling you that I will not assume away the possibility, yes. And again, marriage is not a right.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Setting aside “current knowledge”, I’m curious what you propose to be the underlying mechanism for the above ideas.

I don’t understand why you think allowing gay couples to marry would decrease the number of straight marriages?

And why do you think allowing gay marriages would increase the divorce rate among straight couples?

Because it seems to affect underlying attitudes about the desirability, function and expectations surrounding marriage, particularly as it functions as a social norm. Somehow, introduction of gay marriage and the negative effects on traditional marriages are dependent variables.

Read these two particularly:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp?pg=1

http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
When you have an event whose happening is a non-trivial probability and whose harm would be great, it would be tantamount to criminal recklessness to just ignore it or assume it out of existence.[/quote]

If there’s no scientific evidence for the hypothethis, you can’t accurately conclude it is a “non-trivial possibility”, let alone conclude it is a “non-trivial probability”.

Again, science requires going with the null hypothesis until a statistically significant effect is demonstrated to the contrary. That burden of proof clearly hasn’t been met here.

The fact that the correlation has been repeatedly observed across many countries that have adopted homosexual marriage should imply there is likely some sort of causal relationship there - whether it be common causation, A causing B or B causing A.

Correlation doesn’t prove, nor does it even imply causation. Period.

Besides, you’re misrepresenting the evidence. There are also countries that have adopted gay marriage and have seen a decrease in divorce rates. To be fair, you can’t cherry pick the cases that suit your cause while ignoring those that don’t.

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Within marriage you have two goals that are working at cross-purposes. You want to encourage their formation, but you also want them to last. To the extent that you include incentives to formation, and penalties for break-ups, you have two forces pushing in opposite directions. The inclusion of penalties increases the cost of entering into the marriage status in the first instance, thus acting as a disincentive to formation.[/quote]

The incentives and penalties reduce the number of marriages (ostensibly those that shouldn’t occur in the first place), while increasing the duration of the marriages that do occur. They encourage people not to enter or leave marriage capriciously.

How is that not just as important for gay marriages as for straight marriages? Why would you want people to be more capricious in entering or leaving a marriage in either case?

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
When you have an event whose happening is a non-trivial probability and whose harm would be great, it would be tantamount to criminal recklessness to just ignore it or assume it out of existence.

forlife wrote:
If there’s no scientific evidence for the hypothethis, you can’t accurately conclude it is a “non-trivial possibility”, let alone conclude it is a “non-trivial probability”.

Again, science requires going with the null hypothesis until a statistically significant effect is demonstrated to the contrary. That burden of proof clearly hasn’t been met here.[/quote]

What’s the null hypothesis status for the hypothesis that homosexuality is caused by genetic or other innate factors? Certainly not proven - but widely accepted based on preliminary observations, even though we don’t know the causation mechanisms.

Science doesn’t dictate an answer here. Causation isn’t known, and thus can’t be said to have been eliminated with regard to the observed correlations.

BostonBarrister wrote:

The fact that the correlation has been repeatedly observed across many countries that have adopted homosexual marriage should imply there is likely some sort of causal relationship there - whether it be common causation, A causing B or B causing A.

forlife wrote:

Correlation doesn’t prove, nor does it even imply causation. Period.

Besides, you’re misrepresenting the evidence. There are also countries that have adopted gay marriage and have seen a decrease in divorce rates. To be fair, you can’t cherry pick the cases that suit your cause while ignoring those that don’t.

We’ve got enough data points for there to be serious uncertainty about causation. No other causation has been established as an alternative hypothesis. You cannot assume away the issue.

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:
Within marriage you have two goals that are working at cross-purposes. You want to encourage their formation, but you also want them to last. To the extent that you include incentives to formation, and penalties for break-ups, you have two forces pushing in opposite directions. The inclusion of penalties increases the cost of entering into the marriage status in the first instance, thus acting as a disincentive to formation.

forlife wrote:
The incentives and penalties reduce the number of marriages (ostensibly those that shouldn’t occur in the first place), while increasing the duration of the marriages that do occur. They encourage people not to enter or leave marriage capriciously.

How is that not just as important for gay marriages as for straight marriages? Why would you want people to be more capricious in entering or leaving a marriage in either case?

Are you operating from some perspective that holds the current mix of incentives in heterosexual marriage is ideal - even for heterosexuals? Or a model that holds a heterosexual relationship would be exactly the same as a homosexual relationship?

You could choose the same mix of incentives. What would be capricious would be to choose “the same” just for the sake of it being “the same.”

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Only those who follow the original public meaning of the written Constitution passed via supermajority approval are acting properly.[/quote]

And who determines what the original public meaning of the Constitution is?

Human beings.

The process of making that determination requires human judgment, which is unavoidably informed by a person’s frame of reference, biases, and values. People may tout themselves as being completely unbiased and criticize those that think differently as being biased, but doing so only underscores their own bias and naivete.

The only reason the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and can displace normal legislation is that the Constitution was passed via supermajority votes.

A supermajority means little if it is a confederacy of dunces. Not to imply the founding fathers were stupid; to the contrary, they were brilliant men. However, as I said above they too were human beings subject to the biases of their day. I believe in social progress, and fortunately the Constitution allows for that through the amendment process.

Whether through interpretation of original intent or through a constitutional amendment, I believe gays will eventually have the right to marry just as straight couples can. It’s only a matter of time, and I am pleasantly surprised at how much progress has already been made in the five years since I came out.

Yes, a judges personal views may enter into a decision - but that should only happen in cases where there is real ambiguity, or in application of a principle. It should never happen that a judge uses his own views to create new law.

I’m speaking descriptively, not prescriptively. Regardless of what should happen, people can and do operate under a host of biases. Unfortunately, only a minority are educated and objective enough to realize and acknowledge that fact.

Again, it doesn’t seem you know what you’re talking about. No you wouldn’t. Those courts’ decisions have no bearing whatsoever on federal tax and social security rules. So their making stuff up doesn’t muck up the entire federal system - just state law in CA and MA.

I was referring to access to state rights, not federal rights. My point was that the highest court in both states has determined that the state constitution requires granting gays the right to marry, without the need for an amendment specifically stating such.

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So I am telling you that I will not assume away the possibility, yes.[/quote]

Nor did I say you should. I said you can’t accurately make any claims on the probability of your hypotheses without the scientific evidence to support those claims. Just be honest and say you don’t know, and leave it at that.

Because it seems to affect underlying attitudes about the desirability, function and expectations surrounding marriage, particularly as it functions as a social norm.

How specifically does allowing gays to marry affect the underlying attitudes people have about straight marriage? How does it in any way make straight marriage less desirable, change the function of straight marriage, or alter expectations related to straight marriage?

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
What’s the null hypothesis status for the hypothesis that homosexuality is caused by genetic or other innate factors? Certainly not proven - but widely accepted based on preliminary observations, even though we don’t know the causation mechanisms.[/quote]

Studies have directly measured the effect of genetics/in utero factors on sexual orientation, and have found supporting evidence for a causal relationship. For example, studies of twins raised by different families show a higher probability that one twin will be gay if the other twin is also gay, compared with regular siblings, which in turn is higher compared with people that aren’t genetically related.

We’ve got enough data points for there to be serious uncertainty about causation. No other causation has been established as an alternative hypothesis. You cannot assume away the issue.

That’s incorrect. Other hypotheses have been presented, and as I said earlier there are cases where a reverse correlation has been documented.

I never suggested assuming away the issue. I did suggest basing social policies on scientific evidence, as opposed to catastrophic unproven beliefs.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
So I am telling you that I will not assume away the possibility, yes.

forlife wrote:
Nor did I say you should. I said you can’t accurately make any claims on the probability of your hypotheses without the scientific evidence to support those claims. Just be honest and say you don’t know, and leave it at that.[/quote]

No, you’re saying the issue is settled because the null hypothesis hasn’t been disproved. You’re saying that science demands that one make the conclusion that something that hasn’t been proved is disproved - which is incorrect at any rate. Science merely holds that if you haven’t disproved the null hypothesis you can’t dismiss it and you haven’t proved your hypothesis.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Because it seems to affect underlying attitudes about the desirability, function and expectations surrounding marriage, particularly as it functions as a social norm.

forlife wrote:
How specifically does allowing gays to marry affect the underlying attitudes people have about straight marriage? How does it in any way make straight marriage less desirable, change the function of straight marriage, or alter expectations related to straight marriage?

I’m not sure - but the factors seem to go together like peas and carrots. See: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp?pg=2

[forlife]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Are you operating from some perspective that holds the current mix of incentives in heterosexual marriage is ideal - even for heterosexuals? Or a model that holds a heterosexual relationship would be exactly the same as a homosexual relationship?[/quote]

Not at all. My perspective is that the goal of reducing capricious marriages and divorces is equally well suited to gay and straight relationships.