[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;401061]My position then and now is, as one of the articles calls it, "the keystone of the scholars’ brief: that same-sex marriage will fundamentally alter the institution of marriage by undermining or destroying several social norms attached to man-woman marriage." I was perhaps most clear about this around 2011, see posts 448, 449, 489, 517, and 529.

If you read post 529 you will see that, back in 2011, I was uncertain how significant those changes would be. With more data now coming out, I'm more convinced that the negatives we will see will be on the same level as those arising from "no-fault" divorce laws.[/QUOTE]
None of those five posts mention abortion. The idea that legalising same sex marriage causes more abortions is one I have never seen before, one which as far as I know is not backed up by any "data now coming out" from areas which have had same sex marriage for more than a decade (14 years in the case of my country), and certainly seems like a last-ditch effort to me.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;401091]None of those five posts mention abortion. The idea that legalising same sex marriage causes more abortions is one I have never seen before, one which as far as I know is not backed up by any "data now coming out" from areas which have had same sex marriage for more than a decade (14 years in the case of my country), and certainly seems like a last-ditch effort to me.[/QUOTE]

I'm a little confused. Which of the following do you dispute? Your answers should help me understand why you think this is a new argument.

1. That my posts expressed concern that same sex marriage laws would lead to changes in the institution, undermining several social norms.

2. The passage of same sex marriage laws leads to higher rates of unmarried cohabitation, and higher rates of sex outside of marriage.

3. Those participating in sex outside of marriage, or unmarried cohabitation, are much more likely to have abortions, among many other negatives.

I have to ask, why does the behavior of gays and lesbians affect that of heterosexuals? In particular, how does legal recognition of certain relationships lead to more cohabitation by those involved in said (hetero) cohabitation? If gay marriage reduces the pool of male mates for women, isn't that offset by lesbian marriages?

And again, how are the reproductive habits of cohabiting straights, including the use of contraception, affected by LGBT relationships being recognized?

Your first premise of "undermining social norms" seems to be a bit of a bald assertion. Is there reliable research supporting this? It reminds me of the claim that children raised by LGBT couples have inherently worse development than those raised by hetero couples.

I would also like to see some substantiation of the assertion that "no fault divorce" brought about many problems. Perhaps it did, for divorce lawyers.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;401113]I'm a little confused. Which of the following do you dispute? Your answers should help me understand why you think this is a new argument.

1. That my posts expressed concern that same sex marriage laws would lead to changes in the institution, undermining several social norms.

2. The passage of same sex marriage laws leads to higher rates of unmarried cohabitation, and higher rates of sex outside of marriage.

3. Those participating in sex outside of marriage, or unmarried cohabitation, are much more likely to have abortions, among many other negatives.[/QUOTE]
I dispute only statement number 2 as you have written it above. (I think same sex marriage leads to the opposite on both counts, because same sex couples will be able to marry and therefore not live unmarried or need necessarily have sex outside marriage,)

I think it is a new argument because I have never before heard anyone suggest that legalising same sex marriage causes more abortions.

[QUOTE=kladner;401124]I have to ask, why does the behavior of gays and lesbians affect that of heterosexuals? In particular, how does legal recognition of certain relationships lead to more cohabitation by those involved in said (hetero) cohabitation? If gay marriage reduces the pool of male mates for women, isn't that offset by lesbian marriages?

And again, how are the reproductive habits of cohabiting straights, including the use of contraception, affected by LGBT relationships being recognized?

Your first premise of "undermining social norms" seems to be a bit of a bald assertion. Is there reliable research supporting this? It reminds me of the claim that children raised by LGBT couples have inherently worse development than those raised by hetero couples.

I would also like to see some substantiation of the assertion that "no fault divorce" brought about many problems. Perhaps it did, for divorce lawyers.[/QUOTE]
:goodposting:
Zeta-Flux, I'd like to defer to kladner and see your answers to these questions and comments on his posting.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;401133]I dispute only statement number 2 as you have written it above.[/QUOTE]

Good, I think we are making progress.

You further say "I think same sex marriage leads to the opposite on both counts...". Many people [I]thought[/I] similar things about no-fault divorce; that it could only be a good thing because they believed it would lead to people in abusive relationships being able to get free of them. They were wrong, as shown by numerous studies.

Similarly, as shown by the 100 social science scholars, the passage of same-sex marriage laws has led to an increased rate of divorce, not the opposite.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;401134]Zeta-Flux, I'd like to defer to kladner and see your answers to these questions and comments on his posting.[/QUOTE]Okay. Here are his questions.

[QUOTE]I have to ask, why does the behavior of gays and lesbians affect that of heterosexuals?[/QUOTE]There are many reasons that the behavior of one group can affect the behavior of another. But the argument being made is [B]not[/B] one of behaviors but of social policies.

The right question to ask is: Why would a change in social policy, that seemingly affects only one group, have an affect on the entire population? (Fortunately, kladner does actually ask this question a little later.)

For instance, one might ask why no-fault divorce laws, initially aimed at the segment of society in abusive relations they could not escape, would have an affect on the population as a whole?

The answer is complicated, and has been studied by numerous social scientists. One of the surprising findings is that those in a troubled marriage think they will be happier with it ended, and no-fault divorce makes it easier for that to happen. So naturally, more people take advantage of the easy route. But studies show that in fact divorce usually leads to more unhappiness; whereas, those who stick out hard times end up happier.

The answer also has to do with social pressures, risks/rewards, and human nature.

[QUOTE] In particular, how does legal recognition of certain relationships lead to more cohabitation by those involved in said (hetero) cohabitation?[/quote]I recommend reading the studies of the social scientists on this topic. The short answer is simply that the change in the law changes how society as a whole views the purpose and nature of marriage; and the pressure to marry is lessened.

[quote]If gay marriage reduces the pool of male mates for women, isn't that offset by lesbian marriages?[/QUOTE]Nobody is arguing that the pool of potential mates is being significantly reduced. Rather, people are choosing not to be married, because the changes in law lead to society viewing marriage as less important.

[quote]Your first premise of "undermining social norms" seems to be a bit of a bald assertion. Is there reliable research supporting this?[/quote]I expressed my "concern that same sex marriage laws would lead to changes in the institution, undermining several social norms", I never said it would definitely happen. I wasn't claiming to see the future. There was no "bald assertion".

A big part of the argument of the social scientists is that while there is some preliminary evidence supporting this concern, it is [B]still[/B] too early to say definitively. I recommend you read their brief: [url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_100_Scholars_of_Marriage.pdf[/url]

[quote]It reminds me of the claim that children raised by LGBT couples have inherently worse development than those raised by hetero couples.[/quote]It should have instead sounded more like the following: "many of the studies showing no differences in children raised by LGBT couples have methodological flaws, suffering from self-reporting of self-selected samples; and the main study (by Regnerus) while correcting for those flaws, suffers other flaws (mostly due to the newness of gay adoption procedures)."

[QUOTE]I would also like to see some substantiation of the assertion that "no fault divorce" brought about many problems. Perhaps it did, for divorce lawyers.[/QUOTE]There are numerous studies on this topic. If you want substantiation, contact a leading researcher in the area, or google the topic and read some of the studies which have been done.

[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments-awkward-moments-117444.html?ml=po"]Nine awkward moments[/URL] during the supreme court hearing.

:popcorn:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;401237][URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments-awkward-moments-117444.html?ml=po"]Nine awkward moments[/URL] during the supreme court hearing.[/QUOTE]

It is interesting that only three sentences were allotted to Justice Ginsberg's remarks. Other stories had her lecturing even her fellow justices.

[url]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/28/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gay-marriage-arguments-supreme-court[/url]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;401237][URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/supreme-court-gay-marriage-arguments-awkward-moments-117444.html?ml=po"]Nine awkward moments[/URL] during the supreme court hearing.[/QUOTE]
Why do you say 9? The article says 8. Did they removed one? And if so, I am curious which and why? :surprised:
Was it "too strong" for somebody?