[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402932]Now, with that all said, I think I should make it a bit more clear where my support for traditional marriage stems from. It is not my religious belief. It is not my political party (in fact, I have none). Rather, it started from a single experience I had when I was about 12 years old. My parents divorced each other. This was an incredibly difficult time for me and my two younger brothers. Over the years, I have had many more experiences confirming to me the impact marriage has on children. I have now been married for 15 years (in two weeks), and have five children of my own. I support traditional marriage, not because I want to persecute homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered individuals, bigamists, and whoever else wants to change it. I support traditional marriage because I believe it is the best way to [B]protect the interests of children[/B]. I am more convinced of this today, than I was those many years ago when this thread started. Changing marriage is not in the best interest of children.

Marriage was not originally designed to exclude the non-heterosexual. Wanting to keep its[B] primary defining feature[/B] in place is not an act of persecution.[/QUOTE]
One very important function of marriage is to bring up children, though it is not a function of all marriages. I don't think anyone would disagree with you that the tried and tested method of bringing up children is the safest way to protect their interests. This method is to have them live with two adults who are in a stable, permanent loving relationship.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402932]I freely admit that there are some things in my life that I do not tolerate. I don't tolerate disrespect towards my wife from my children. [The consequence is that they must immediately apologize.] I don't tolerate lying in our home. If I find a mistake in my mathematics, I don't let it continue to exist, but exorcise it from my work. And the list goes on.

So let's ask the very simple and basic question: Does this make me intolerant? And if so, is that a bad thing?

I would hope that people would say no, that these things (by themselves) don't make me intolerant. I hope that any person would look at themselves and say "I too do not tolerate certain things". And no, it isn't bad to lack tolerance for those behaviors/errors.[/quote]In which case, I will disappoint you. You are intolerant [b]of certain things[/b]. Everyone, AFAIK, is the same as you in that they are intolerant in some respects and tolerant in others. Tolerance and intolerance, [i]per se[/i] are neither good nor bad in my view. Being a bigot, of which another poster has accused you, and incorrectly in my view, is an entirely different matter.
[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402932]
Rather, the type of intolerance we seek to eliminate is unjust/personal intolerance. The blatant kind, which *oppresses* people for their skin color, or *ridicules* the poor for their lack of material goods, or *persecutes* others for their differing religious beliefs, or *mocks* someone because of differing genetics, and so forth.
[/quote]And in this respect, we are in violent agreement.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402932]I am more convinced of this today, than I was those many years ago when this thread started. Changing marriage is not in the best interest of children.[/quote]And there we have to agree to disagree.

Given the cock-ups married heterosexual couples make in raising families, some of which you've described in your own personal history (at least, I [i]assume[/i] your relatives were straight couples) it is very far from clear to me that on average homosexual couples are going to make a worse job of it.

Disclaimer: I'm straight, been married for >25 years and, to the best of my knowledge, neither SWMBO nor I have any children.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402932]Rather, the type of intolerance we seek to eliminate is unjust/personal intolerance. The blatant kind, which *oppresses* people for their skin color, or *ridicules* the poor for their lack of material goods, or *persecutes* others for their differing religious beliefs, or *mocks* someone because of differing genetics, and so forth.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;402956]And in this respect, we are in violent agreement.[/QUOTE]

I agree too. But the phrase "... or *denigrates* someone by refusing to afford their primary relationship the same status as that of other people's because of the gender of their partner" should be included as an equally valid example of unjust/personal intolerance, in my view.

[QUOTE=xilman;402956]Given the cock-ups married heterosexual couples make in raising families, some of which you've described in your own personal history (at least, I [i]assume[/i] your relatives were straight couples) it is very far from clear to me that on average homosexual couples are going to make a worse job of it.[/QUOTE]This is where I believe social science can inform us.

Why have heterosexual couples cocked-up so much? A large part of the problem has been perverse social pressures. The passage of no-fault divorce laws, for example, contributed quite a lot. There are other issues, including erosion of marital norms, through perverse incentives to single mothers, removing requirements for men to support children they have fathered, etc... It is my opinion that some of these social pressures were what contributed to my own parents' break-up.

For some initial long-term studies in countries which have passed gay marriage laws, see [URL="http://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_100_Scholars_of_Marriage.pdf"]this link[/URL] pages 18-25. See also appendix B.

What has really bothered me when studying this issue has been the, sometimes egregious, obfuscation of data. For example, if you try using google to find out what happened to divorce rates in the Netherlands, you will find the claim that the rate decreased from 2.3% to 2.1% since the passage of gay marriage in that country. What they don't tell you is that they also created a new form of divorce, which is not counted in the statistics! So in fact divorce rates have been relatively stable. They also don't tell you that the [B]marriage rates[/B] have significantly declined. So less people are motivated to enter the institution, and [B]more[/B] children are being raised in single parent homes.

---------------------------

Brian-E,

As I said in my post, opposing a practice is not necessarily the same as denigrating an affected groups. To judge whether or not the opposition is denigration, one must know the reason for the opposition to the practice.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402966]This is where I believe social science can inform us.

Why have heterosexual couples cocked-up so much? A large part of the problem has been perverse social pressures. The passage of no-fault divorce laws, for example, contributed quite a lot. [/QUOTE]

Married couples have been screwing up their children's up-bringing long, long before divorce even existed. I still see no evidence that homosexual couples are likely to do a worse job than them. To be fair, that's almost entirely because there hasn't yet been enough time to gather the statistics.

[QUOTE]Married couples have been screwing up their children's up-bringing long, long before divorce even existed.[/QUOTE]I misunderstood your original point. Now that I think I understand what you are saying, I would argue that this doesn't address my position, for two reasons.

First, it seems to be confusing individuals with institutions. Sure, individual parents make individual mistakes. Some of those mistakes are so serious that it screw's up their childs up-bringing. But social science has shown, over and over, that children do significantly better (on average) with both parents than with a single parent. This is not because single parents are universally better at screwing up their children's up-bringing.

Second, the argument isn't that gay parents make worse parents. The argument is that legalizing gay marriage leads to more children being conceived and raised out of wedlock. Not because homosexuals make worse parents. Rather, because fewer heterosexuals get married in the first place, because of the new social pressures related to the legal institution of marriage.

That said, there similarly hasn't been enough time to gather [B]conclusive[/B] statistics to establish these claims either.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;402977]The argument is that legalizing gay marriage leads to more children being conceived and raised out of wedlock.[/QUOTE]

I haven't looked at official statistics, but I am aware of a huge increase in the number of children being conceived and raised out of wedlock. I'm under the impression this effect is much further advanced in Europe than in the United States, and that in the US it is much further advanced among the poor. Both seem to be leading indicators for the effect in the US middle class. In my youth, single mothers were almost always widows or divorcees. Now I know many that are the result of single women choosing to have babies alone. I'm probably most disturbed by the acceptability of the "baby mama" phenomena, where the [strike]father[/strike] sperm donor is proud of his role, and rotates his time among his baby mama and his other girl friends. I agree these trends are not good for children.

But I don't believe gay marriage has anything to do with these trends. They have been in effect for decades, they are going to continue, and the societal pressures encouraging them don't appear, to me, to be related to gay marriage.

[QUOTE=wblipp;402983]But I don't believe gay marriage has anything to do with these trends. They have been in effect for decades, they are going to continue, and the societal pressures encouraging them don't appear, to me, to be related to gay marriage.[/QUOTE]The first question you have to answer is why we have those trends, and what can we do to reverse them.

For instance, no-fault divorce laws have been shown to have led to a large bump in divorce rates. That change in law provided a perverse incentive to leave marriage. Similarly, there are some housing schemes, designed to help unmarried people without a home to get an apartment; but it favors those with children, so it provides a perverse incentive to have children out of wedlock.

I believe it is possible to reverse these trends through a combination of education and removal of some of the bad incentives. But that is honestly a difficult proposal, because we wouldn't want to "hurt" unmarried women with children by removing their extra support, would we? Then again, would they have the children if they weren't supported? It is a vicious circle.

The second question you have to ask isn't whether gay marriage has anything to do with these previous trends. Rather, the question is whether that proposed change in law will [I]aggravate[/I] those trends, just as other social experiments have done so. The initial data coming out of countries which have tried it suggests yes; so in my opinion we should exercise a lot of caution and at least wait for more data.

[QUOTE].....in my opinion we should exercise a lot of caution and at least wait for more data. [/QUOTE]

Will hell freezing over be an adequate indication that we have waited long enough, in your opinion?

You seem willing to give short shrift to equal human and civil rights, aka Equal Protection Under Law. Would you have argued in favor of the state in Loving v Virginia?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403036]For instance, no-fault divorce laws have been shown to have led to a large bump in divorce rates. That change in law provided a perverse incentive to leave marriage.[/QUOTE]

The perverse incentives that come to my mind are the ones for staying in a marriage that were removed by no-fault divorce. While I believe that no-fault divorce has increased the number of divorces, I'm not so sure it has actually been bad for the institution of marriage. It has ended a lot of bad marriages, but it isn't clear to me that preserving large numbers of bad marriages is a good thing. As a personal anecdote, my first marriage, with no children, was ended in a no-fault divorce. Both of us later remarried and raised children. It is arguable that this was a three-fold benefit for the institution of marriage, ending one bad one and launching two good ones.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;403036]Rather, the question is whether that proposed change in law will aggravate those trends[/QUOTE]
Your argument is not that it is bad for same sex couples to share the societal benefits of marriage, and it is not that it is bad any children these same sex couples may choose to raise. Rather, your argument is that people unknown and far removed from these same sex couples may have an increased probability of negative behaviors. This is less direct than the examples of negative unintended consequences you have raised. In no-fault divorce, the potential recipients of the divorce may be incentivized to infidelity, and the poor mother's housing help may incentivize her to single parenthood. In both cases the recipient of the boon was also the recipient of the negative incentive. But the marrying same sex couples are not incentivized to negative behavior - it's somebody else somewhere else that is allegedly getting the negative incentive. Even if you're right about these indirect negative consequences, I think it's unreasonable to penalize the same sex couples for such distant consequences.

While we are talking about unintended consequences, you are alienating your natural allies. Same sex couples don't fall into child rearing by default. Same couples that have children usually do so deliberately, intentionally, and sometimes at great expense. These are people that share your views about the importance of children and the importance of loving homes for raising them. If you want to reverse trends that are bad for children, you should be reaching out to these new families. This is the largest new (or perhaps newly visible) pool of supporters for raising children in loving homes to arise within memory.

[QUOTE=wblipp;403069]It is arguable that this was a three-fold benefit for the institution of marriage, ending one bad one and launching two good ones.[/quote]I think nearly everyone who ends their marriage feels that way (or they wouldn't be ending their marriages). Further, that doesn't necessarily make it true (on average) that it was a [b]social good[/b] even if it seemingly benefited a few of the individuals involved.

So, go ahead and argue that no-fault divorce is a social good because in your case you were benefited! I don't find that argument particularly persuasive. ;) [By the way, did you really need the no-fault divorce laws to separate?]

[quote]Your argument is not that it is bad for same sex couples to share the societal benefits of marriage, and it is not that it is bad any children these same sex couples may choose to raise. Rather, your argument is that people unknown and far removed from these same sex couples may have an increased probability of negative behaviors.[/quote]These "people unknown" may be far removed from the same sex couples (perhaps), but not far removed from the [b]laws[/b] being passed. Those have a direct effect on them, their view of marriage, what marriage means in their culture, etc...

[quote]This is less direct than the examples of negative unintended consequences you have raised. In no-fault divorce, the potential recipients of the divorce may be incentivized to infidelity, and the poor mother's housing help may incentivize her to single parenthood.[/quote]These two sentences are at odds. But perhaps you don't see it so let me spell it out.

How does no-fault divorce incentivize divorce? It makes it easier to do, and it feeds on itself when more people set the example of using it that way.

How do same-sex marriage laws incentivize less marriage? By making marriage about the couple. The purpose of marriage becomes "We do it if it [I]benefits[/I] us". This is one of the direct effects of the change in law, and when people see others not get married, it feeds into the social loop.

[quote]But the marrying same sex couples are not incentivized to negative behavior - it's somebody else somewhere else that is allegedly getting the negative incentive. Even if you're right about these indirect negative consequences, I think it's unreasonable to penalize the same sex couples for such distant consequences.[/quote]The same thing is currently said about no-fault divorce. They say: even if the social scientists are correct that this only indirectly harms children, it is unreasonable to penalize those in abusive relationships by changing the laws.

I think this is wrong for two reasons.

First, these effects are not indirect, and they affect MANY more children than they do the supposed penalized groups. The changes in laws are primarily about changing the institution of marriage, the institution whose primary social (but perhaps not individual) function should be to provide a culture in which children are raised in a stable secure environment, by their parents, who are motivated to fidelity, etc...

Second, it is not an all or nothing proposition. As I've said previously in the thread, I am all for passing laws giving care-givers (whether in sexual relations or not) of [I]any kind[/I] the rights of hospital visitation, insurance, inheritance, etc... But we can do that without damaging the social institution of marriage, and in turn (directly) harming children (on average).

[quote]While we are talking about unintended consequences, you are alienating your natural allies. Same sex couples don't fall into child rearing by default. Same couples that have children usually do so deliberately, intentionally, and sometimes at great expense. These are people that share your views about the importance of children and the importance of loving homes for raising them. If you want to reverse trends that are bad for children, you should be reaching out to these new families. This is the largest new (or perhaps newly visible) pool of supporters for raising children in loving homes to arise within memory.[/QUOTE]The statistics coming out of other nations is that this "largest new...pool" is not that large. And, when these people decide to "have children" it often leads to the raising of children away from either their biological father or their mother, which is a social ill (on average). [To be clear, I'm not talking about adoption here.]