Flouran, aside from the fact that you cannot know what contributors to this thread are also contributing elsewhere in other ways, don't you agree that discussion of the issue is a vital part of the progress? Especially when the issue is currently relevant in various parts of the world which are considering opening marriage to same sex couples? Various states of the USA have the question right there on the political agenda, and if people are better informed of the issues then surely there is more chance that these states will go ahead and open up their marriage following your own state which so admirably led the way a few years ago.

And as a relative newcomer to this forum, did you really carefully read through all the 340 postings, many of them highly detailed, from both sides of the argument, before passing your judgment on the discussion's value?

[quote=Brian-E;171654]
And as a relative newcomer to this forum, did you really carefully read through all the 340 postings, many of them highly detailed, from both sides of the argument, before passing your judgment on the discussion's value?[/quote]
I seriously think people should stop judging me b/c I am a "relative newcomer to this forum". No offense, but this NEEDS to stop here and now. I am really getting P.O.ed.

All I said is that we should all contribute to this issue rather than just talk about it. Talking about it is fine, but we should help the cause (perhaps fund raise, etc.). This summer I think I may. Does anyone have any ideas, on what would be the most optimal way of helping the cause (fund raising is a decent idea, except for the fact that in this economy, many will be hesitant to give money).

Fund raising is indeed a noble enterprise provided that the funds are being raised for a clear purpose. In the case of opening marriage to same sex couples it will depend on where you are and what the political situation there is, but in most places the biggest barrier will be public ignorance which can be countered with information campaigns. Organising a campaign to raise public awareness of the discrimination still practised in most places against same sex couples who are treated differently from opposite sex couples, and then raising funds for that, will be a tremendous boost to the cause which you support.

Thankyou!

"Adventures in Math & Marriage

or,

Why Gay Marriage Does Not Decrease Straight Marriage"

[URL]http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-05-13#feature[/URL]

[I](Some social conservatives seem not to understand that the very data they present to support their claim actually show just the opposite! ... or else they impugn the data presented by others, claiming "that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to."

No wonder that students in countries where gay marriage is legal "outperform their American counterparts in math and science, as they’ve been doing for quite a while."[/I]
[I]
-- cheesehead)[/I]

[quote=Barrett Brown]

DOES THE LEGALIZATION OF GAY MARRIAGE contribute to the decline of heterosexual marriage? A good portion of our fair republic’s cultural conservatives seem to believe that it does. Evangelical kingpin James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, told a typically credulous Larry King in November of 2006:[INDENT]In the Netherlands and places where they have tried to define marriage [to include gay couples], what happens is that people just don’t get married. It’s not that the homosexuals are marrying in greater numbers, it’s that when you confuse what marriage is, young people just don’t get married.
[/INDENT]If what Dobson says is true, New Jersey is going to be in huge trouble, and Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, must already be. Of course, Dobson is wrong. Here’s why.

First, let’s think about this problem mathematically and prepare our variables. X is any country “where they have tried to define marriage [to include gay couples],” in Dobson’s description. Y is the marriage rate among heterosexuals before country X has “tried to define marriage [to include gay couples],” and Z is the allegedly decreasing heterosexual marriage rate that exists after ten years of gay civil unions. The Dobson Theorem, as we shall call it, states that “if X, then Y must be greater than Z.” Or, translating math into English, “if a nation allows for civil unions, the marriage rate among heterosexuals at the time that this occurs will be higher than it is ten years later.”

Let us now test the Dobson Theorem. ...

... Denmark began allowing gay civil unions in 1989. Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 10.7 percent. Norway did the same in 1993, and a decade later the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed suite in 1995, and ten years later the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 28.7 percent. And these marriages were actually lasting. During the same time frame, the divorce rate dropped 13.9 percent in Denmark, 6 percent in Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden. So, we may probably dispense with the Dobson Theorem. But how did Dobson get this relationship so wrong in the first place?

The culprit may be the [I]Weekly Standard[/I] and [I]National Review[/I] gadfly Stanley Kurtz ... Confronted with statistics indicating that marriage in Scandinavia is in fine shape, Kurtz instead proclaimed that “Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to.” Brushing aside numbers showing that Danish marriage was up ten percent from 1990 to 1996, Kurtz countered that “just-released marriage rates for 2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark.” He failed to note that they were down in 2001 for quite a few places, including the United States, which of course had no civil unions anywhere in 2001. And having not yet had access to the figures, he couldn’t have known that both American and Scandinavian rates went back up in 2002. As for Norway, he says, the higher marriage rate “has more to do with the institution’s decline than with any renaissance. Much of the increase in Norway’s marriage rate is driven by older couples ‘catching up.’” It’s unclear exactly how old these “older couples” may be, but at any rate, Kurtz thinks their marriages simply don’t count. But even if we arbitrarily strike such nuptials from the record, we’re still left with an increase in Norway’s marriage rate, as Kurtz himself acknowledges that these oldster nuptials only constitute “much” of the increase, not all of it or even most of it. So Kurtz’s position is that Norwegian marriage is in decline because not only are younger couples getting married at a higher rate, but older couples are as well.

. . .

Why is Kurtz so disturbed about out-of-wedlock rates? Personally, I think it would be preferable for a couple to have a child and then get married, as is more often the case in Scandinavia, rather than for a couple to have a child and then get divorced, as is more often the case in the United States. Kurtz doesn’t seem to feel this way, though, as it isn’t convenient to feel this way at this particular time. Here are all of these couples, he tells us, having babies without first filling out the proper baby-making paperwork with the proper federal agencies. What will become of the babies? As long as we’re looking at trend lines, we may conclude that they’ll continue to outperform their American counterparts in math and science, as they’ve been doing for quite a while.[/quote]

6 to 1 ruling of California's Supreme Court:
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage[/url]

(Note Yahoo news requently modifies stories after they are posted using the smae URL.)

[quote=Uncwilly;174907]6 to 1 ruling of California's Supreme Court:
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage[/URL]

(Note Yahoo news requently modifies stories after they are posted using the smae URL.)[/quote]
Yes. The ruling concerns the validity of using such a referendum to change the state constitution, of course, saying nothing at all about the moral issue of inclusion of same sex couples in the marriage institution.

BTW, I'm just now watching "Charlie Rose" on PBS - there's an attorney who will be arguing before the US Supreme Court about a case involving a same-sex marriage ban. He just made an argument I've pointed out before -- that [I]one[/I] of the reasons [I]some[/I] people oppose same-sex marriage is that they consider gays "less than fully human". He also noted that this same "less than fully human" attitude also was present in some of the past opposition to interracial marriage and other civil rights matters.

[I]OTOH[/I] he cites the "equal protection" clause (14th Amendment) as a fundamental support for his side. But a few decades ago, when proponents of equal rights on the basis of gender cited that same clause, the Supreme Court [I]then[/I] ruled that it did not apply because when the 14th Amendment was passed, "persons" included only men, not women, in the then-legal sense. Indeed, [U]if[/U] the 14th Amendment equal-protection clause had the inclusive legal meaning, according to court rulings, that many folks nowadays wish it to have (i.e., "persons" includes women), [I]then there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage)!! ... and no need to have proposed the Equal Rights Amendment (which fell short of ratification in three states[/I][I] by a total of only five state-legislator votes[/I][I])!![/I]

I am not a lawyer, but I've had a long-time interest in constitutional law. It seems to me that [U]if the Supreme Court were to rule that the equal-protection clause meant that same-sex marriage could not be prohibited, that would necessarily mean equality of rights on the basis of gender all around -- instant ERA![/U] So, I don't expect the SC conservatives to rule that way, and the equal-protection argument for same-sex marriage will fail. (-- on the national level, that is. Some state constitutions have some equal-protection clauses that have been ruled [I]by their state courts[/I] to indeed mean equality of rights on the basis of gender -- within those particular states only. A lot depends on the particular exact wording, context and legal history of each such provision at the state level.)

"Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy"

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_re_us/us_psychologists_gays[/URL]

[quote=David Crary]NEW YORK – The American Psychological Association has declared that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients that they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Instead, the APA is urging therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

In a resolution adopted by the APA's governing council and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the association puts itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.[/quote]

[QUOTE]"Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy"

....

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.[/QUOTE]Both the newspaper article, and the APA resolution, seem to go beyond the facts supported by the Task Force's study, which (as the APA themselves summarized) found "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation."

In other words, an organization which is [i]a priori[/i] against reparation therapies, appoints a task force which searches for technical problems with papers that appeared in [i]peer-reviewed journals[/i] which support such therapies. [b]Repudiate[/b] seems such a strong word in this context.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185661]Both the newspaper article, and the APA resolution, seem to go beyond the facts supported by the Task Force's study, which (as the APA themselves summarized) found "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation."

In other words, an organization which is [I]a priori[/I] against reparation therapies, appoints a task force which searches for technical problems with papers that appeared in [I]peer-reviewed journals[/I] which support such therapies. [B]Repudiate[/B] seems such a strong word in this context.[/quote]

Of course, Mr. Religious Zealot forgets that since SOCE have a cost, not only do they have to work, but turning gays into straights has to have some benefit other than to fulfill the edict to [I]'go forth and add logarithms'[/I].

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory[/URL]

Trading K-selection for r-selection is essentially trading human ingenuity against human fertility, so this is a possible explanation why religious people are so fucking stupid, that they are practically indistinguishable from [URL="http://www.animalresearch.info/en/science/animalsused/nematode"][I]C. elegans[/I][/URL] with 302 neurons.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;185661]Both the newspaper article, and the APA resolution, seem to go beyond the facts supported by the Task Force's study,[/quote]Can you give us a link to the report?

[quote]which (as the APA themselves summarized) found "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation."[/quote]Okay, that statement is about whether or not SOCE works to change orientation. In particular, it says there's insufficient evidence for concluding that SOCE works (see below), or the opposite.

But "and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies" (from the part of the article that both you and I quoted) is about whether SOCE has harmful side effects -- a different matter.

IIRC the FDA approves drugs only if they're "safe and effective". Here, we're not discussing a drug or FDA approval, but (I am judging only by the article and have not read the report to which you refer) they're saying that there's insufficient evidence that SOCE is [I]either[/I] safe [I]or[/I] effective -- that SOCE may have harmful side effects, and it hasn't been shown to achieve its intended goal.

[quote] [B]Repudiate[/B] seems such a strong word in this context.[/quote]

"Repudiate" may be too strong a word [I]if[/I] taken to refer to a context where evidence definitely shows SOCE to be ineffective (with no mention of safety).

But if it's supposed to refer to a context where evidence is claimed to show that SOCE is both safe and effective (or either!) -- as the context seems to be to me in this article -- it seems appropriate, doesn't it?