I’d expect it to be around 2.5%.
You must have the wrong link, figure 3 does no such thing.
They are symptoms of the same problem. The weakening of marriage as an institution. The case for gay marriage is that marriage is about love and convenience. The case against is that it is about family. Since love and convenience are ephemeral, anything that is based on them is built on shifting sand. The recognition of gay marriage by the state puts us further down the road that marriage is not about family and thus we should expect fewer people creating stable families and more out of wedlock births and subsequent social pathologies.
Well, here in Spain we have youth unemployment through the roof and seem to be unable to form government- but I’m not sure that’s related to SSM, unless it’s caused some sort of divine punishment.
But I think that general uselessness is more likely to be the culprit here.
And where does your study connect gay marriage and out-of-wedlock children?
Gay people have families too and did before SSM was legal.
It doesn’t. It merely shows what we predicted would happen has happened. It may be a coincidence or we may have been prescient. I don’t think the tools are available to prove us definitively right but they seem to be pointing that way.
It’s like claiming gay marriage will move the moon away from the Earth, and then claiming “Aha! The moon has moved away from the Earth! Proof!” and ignoring that the moon was doing that anyway and not providing any solid reason why gay marriage should affect this at all.
And then later on, moving the goalposts and saying gay marriage and lunar recession are both symptoms of a greater problem.
What you predicted would happen was already happening, putting the accomplishment at a level rather less impressive than prophesy, or even meteorology. But let’s indulge this for the sake of argument - if gay marriage was banned in places where it is now legal, by what mechanism would it decrease out-of-wedlock births?
The numbers were already moving that way, and also did so in countries without ssm.
Here’s some more examples of a similar phenomenon:
Because the other guy’s notes may not relate to your situation. Under the South African legislation, its possible to register a marriage which has been concluded in accordance with customary African law (meaning “the customs and usages traditionally observed among the indigenous African peoples of South Africa and which form part of the culture of those peoples”). This operates to allow the recognition of polygynous marriages, since some - but not all - of the indigenous African communities practice polygyny, and you can only have your polygynous marriage recognised by concluding it under customary law, which is unlikely to be possible unless you or your spouse is a member of the community concerned. You can’t have polyandrous marriages recognised since there is no indigenous community in South Africa which practices polyandry.
I don’t think you can map this onto the US situation and expect a similar outcome.
Well, you could the historical (and for some, still current) Mormon model, and that’s as American a community as a community can get.
Don’t think so. Figure 3 - 1963 single parent/common law couples made up roughly 6% families when a child was born. In 1993 that had shifted to roughly 30%.
Gay marriage in Canada came into law in 2005.
Your claim was that
The data, however, shows that children were being born outside of conventional marriage in increasing numbers well before gay marriage was legalized. Your linkage is incorrect.
You could. But I have a sneaking suspicion that that would not lead to legislation recognising models of polygamy that Trinopus might favour.
Personally, I’d rather see legal polygamy, were it to come about, evolving out of partnership law rather than marital law.
It’s an interesting, not completely illogical, but completely ephemeral theory because it’s based on a “changing vibe” idea. Vibes do change, or course, and who knows why. But your theory seems highly dubious on the face of it, and you’d need a careful statistical study to show the theory was correct. You ain’t got it.
Her information isn’t accurate about the source countries: the US isn’t “the only country” (sic) that lets gay couples adopt. The numbers get better (not by much, but definitely >1) if you include countries that allow single-parent adoption. Nobody asked my then-unpartnered sister in law what her sexual orientation was; she’s adopting from Bulgaria and once that paperwork is finished, Bro and her will get married and he’ll co-adopt (they’re already doing the Spanish paperwork with Bro’s lastname as the kid’s second). They’ve chosen to go that route because it means less total paperwork than if they get married before the kid gets here (he’ll be coming home for Christmas, they already have the dates!), but it would work just the same for a same sex couple.
Go_Arachnid_Laser, considering that we’ve officially been government-less for a year and things are just same ol’ same ol’, I’m not sure that the inability to form a government is a problem. Other than give speeches and steal what the hell do they do, anyway? And they steal just as well from their seats in Parliament.
This could be just an editing issue. The US is certainly not the only country in which gay couples can adopt, but the intersection of “countries which let gay couples adopt” and “countries which allow non-residents to adopt and remove children” may be populated by a relatively small number of countries, and the US may be the most prominent of these, or conceivably the only one.