Thanks, that’s what I was thinking. There seems to be an unfounded assumption that being born out-of-wedlock is in-and-of-itself a negative quality.
Ridiculous, and a convenient excuse.
When your sample size is five (since that’s the number of countries specified in the OP), it’s actually not pretty easy at all to determine if a single variable changed much of anything. This is a big part of why the conclusions of the social sceinces, especially if you’re doing international comparisons, are usually a lot weaker and more dubious than those of the natural sciences.
Which is why I said we have “lots of data about trend lines and rates of change from both before and after the variable changed.” We’re looking for trend changes in a population before and after an event, not differences between geographic locations. I’d use the “sample size” of millions (of people), or dozens/hundreds (of years/months), rather than try to pivot on “country.”
This isn’t rocket science. It’s first-semester statistics. Are you seriously claiming we can’t draw conclusions about anything in the world because everybody’s living on the same planet, so all questions about people have a sample size of one? Because that’s sure what that sounds like.
Unless you’re under the impression each country has had only one gay marriage, your observation is statistically unsound.
No. The issue is not about what you think or what I think marriage is supposed to be “about”. Marriage is a social institution that many people consider very important to them, and for good reason: symbolism and social recognition have always been major aspects of all societies. This is all we need to know. Because by denying certain people the right to that social institution, you’re creating an underclass, a lower-tier order of human that is presumed not to be entitled to the same human rights and social standing as the rest of us. And that is a social pathology, and a serious one – one that condones and implicitly promotes discrimination and bigotry.
So how has Canada been doing? Just fine, thanks. Promoting a progressive, tolerant, multicultural society that most of us are glad to be part of. Though I regret to announce that, despite all the fear-mongering from the right promising it will happen, to this day I am still not permitted to marry my dog.
Actually, marrying your dog is perfectly legal. It just doesn’t get recognized by any country I know of…
Some countries have laws against consummation of such a marriage.
I admire the integrity of the author of that website, being opposed to divorce and all.
An anti-same sex marriage protestor once told me “Someone in Australia married his dog.” I shot back “Same Sex Marriage isn’t even legal in Australia.” Turns out the “marriage” was a same sex marriage protest: If you can marry a man, why can’t you marry your dog?"
Allowing two people who love each other to marry is weakening marriage? Is this a new application of Newspeak?
For that matter, we should remove the children of divorced parents from either, since single people can’t have children and there is no longer a hetero, two-parent family.
I, too, and trying to wrap my head around a supposed mechanism. Correlation/causation aside, one of Puddlegum’s links said, quoting Texas’ Attorney General Gregg Abbott:
This seems to suggest that gays should marry heterosexually just to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
It makes no sense. Forcing someone into an undesired marriage to preserve something the state considers desirable is certainly not a recipe for happiness for parents or children.
The state needs to stay out of our bedrooms and keep the fuck away from our families.