This is a weak response. Clearly, if things had taken a turn for the worse in Scandinavia gay-marriage opponents would have pointed to this evidence to talk about the calamitous effects of gay marriage.

Furthermore, if recognizing gay partnerships has no deleterious effect, then the burden of proof on gay-marriage opponents is even higher. If you want to deny putting gays and lesbian relationships on an equal plane with straight relationships, then in an ideal world it should be up to you to prove that this denial of equality serves some good (instead, all I hear is mystical bs about not tinkering with traditions and institutions). The data from Scandinavia is the closest thing to an e...

This is a weak response. Clearly, if things had taken a turn for the worse in Scandinavia gay-marriage opponents would have pointed to this evidence to talk about the calamitous effects of gay marriage.

Furthermore, if recognizing gay partnerships has no deleterious effect, then the burden of proof on gay-marriage opponents is even higher. If you want to deny putting gays and lesbian relationships on an equal plane with straight relationships, then in an ideal world it should be up to you to prove that this denial of equality serves some good (instead, all I hear is mystical bs about not tinkering with traditions and institutions). The data from Scandinavia is the closest thing to an experiment to test the effects of gay marriage--the results say, it does no harm.

This is a values conflict. My advocacy of gay marriage stems from my valuing of inclusivity, equality, and liberty. Opponents appear to favor their own vision of gender, sexuality, and romantic relationships. We can't adjudicate between this values conflict on the basis of statistics. We can however, try to appeal to the other side on more neutral grounds. If opponents are concerned about gay marriage promoting a decline in marriage, I can point to the evidence from Scandinavia to show this fear has no basis in fact. It does not really address the value dispute, but for those who are half-heartedly opposed to gay marriage it might sway their minds.

If both sides of the issue just asse...

This is a values conflict. My advocacy of gay marriage stems from my valuing of inclusivity, equality, and liberty. Opponents appear to favor their own vision of gender, sexuality, and romantic relationships. We can't adjudicate between this values conflict on the basis of statistics. We can however, try to appeal to the other side on more neutral grounds. If opponents are concerned about gay marriage promoting a decline in marriage, I can point to the evidence from Scandinavia to show this fear has no basis in fact. It does not really address the value dispute, but for those who are half-heartedly opposed to gay marriage it might sway their minds.

If both sides of the issue just assert the "truthfulness" of our positions (which are really grounded in values) it's not going to get us anywhere

People have used appeal to tradition to try to claim the following would also unravel the fabric of society and lead to impending destruction: divorce, welfare, ending slavery, giving women votes, women in the workplace, inter-racial marriage, etc.

In addition to same-sex marriage, which of these civil rights victories would you like to also see overturned with a constitutional amendment? And if not, why on Earth not? The end of plantation slavery caused an enormous economic detriment to America (the South especially). Was that bad for society?

It used to be obvious, common sense that African-Americans were not fit to be free, that women didn't have the sense to vote, that miscegenation wa...

People have used appeal to tradition to try to claim the following would also unravel the fabric of society and lead to impending destruction: divorce, welfare, ending slavery, giving women votes, women in the workplace, inter-racial marriage, etc.

In addition to same-sex marriage, which of these civil rights victories would you like to also see overturned with a constitutional amendment? And if not, why on Earth not? The end of plantation slavery caused an enormous economic detriment to America (the South especially). Was that bad for society?

It used to be obvious, common sense that African-Americans were not fit to be free, that women didn't have the sense to vote, that miscegenation was an abomination, etc. The great thing about common sense and rationality is that they evolve to incorporate new evidence as it is presented. Without this hard-won rationality, life would be a lot worse off for many...

If Ann Coulter=Jon Stewart and she's so terrible, why would you quote Jon Stewart?

Another question: If a guy can marry a guy - why can't a guy marry his sister? Bad outcome? How about NO outcome in gays...

There have been numerous studies proving the fact that the best thing for a child is to have a mother and a father. Not 2 people, but a female and a male role models, for boys and girls. How exactly does that work out in families with 2 mommies?

Finally a small quote from the dictionary on the definition of marriage: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I'm actually not anti-gay. They can do whatever they want, however they want... but I don't want it paraded...

If Ann Coulter=Jon Stewart and she's so terrible, why would you quote Jon Stewart?

Another question: If a guy can marry a guy - why can't a guy marry his sister? Bad outcome? How about NO outcome in gays...

There have been numerous studies proving the fact that the best thing for a child is to have a mother and a father. Not 2 people, but a female and a male role models, for boys and girls. How exactly does that work out in families with 2 mommies?

Finally a small quote from the dictionary on the definition of marriage: "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

I'm actually not anti-gay. They can do whatever they want, however they want... but I don't want it paraded in my face, as it is now, anymore than I'm parading my sexual preferences/behavior in front of theirs or anyone elses.

BigBadWolf, the pledge controversy is another value conflict. It would be very hard to prove that the "under God" in the pledge has a easily measured effect. That doesn't mean that its wrong to argue for or against "under God", but you would have to do so on philosophical grounds, and one would have to be very careful when making claims that the phrase has some kind of adverse effect on society. I think usually opponents of "under God" tend to focus more on the effect on a hypothetical child who doesn't believe in the Jewish/Christian god(s) (or any particular god), not the society-wide impact.

When gay-marriage opponents speak out against gay marriage, the problem is they are making neb...

BigBadWolf, the pledge controversy is another value conflict. It would be very hard to prove that the "under God" in the pledge has a easily measured effect. That doesn't mean that its wrong to argue for or against "under God", but you would have to do so on philosophical grounds, and one would have to be very careful when making claims that the phrase has some kind of adverse effect on society. I think usually opponents of "under God" tend to focus more on the effect on a hypothetical child who doesn't believe in the Jewish/Christian god(s) (or any particular god), not the society-wide impact.

When gay-marriage opponents speak out against gay marriage, the problem is they are making nebulous claims about the bad impact on society. Moreover, they are in conflict with deeply held values of many Americans, ones that I just laid out--inclusivity, liberty, equality, To my mind, the onus is on them to make testable claims about the effects of gay marriage, especially since measures of divorce rates, marriage rates, and out-of-wedlock births are relatively easy to come by.

By the way, the "under God" phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s by conservative lawmakers concerned about godless communism. For what its worth, I don't think it did us any good back then.

but I don't want it paraded in my face, as it is now, anymore than I'm parading my sexual preferences/behavior in front of theirs or anyone elses.

Oh boy. You might have opened up a Pandora's box with that one.

If this whole debate is *really* about "what is best for the children" then why isn't everyone more up-in-arms about single-parent households, which are *far* more prevalent than same-sex couples with children (a tiny minority) and *demonstrably* put their children at a statistical disadvantage? What about the millions of children in our own country growing up in poverty, which will *always* dwarf the number of kids with gay parents by several orders of magnitude.

Thes...

but I don't want it paraded in my face, as it is now, anymore than I'm parading my sexual preferences/behavior in front of theirs or anyone elses.

Oh boy. You might have opened up a Pandora's box with that one.

If this whole debate is *really* about "what is best for the children" then why isn't everyone more up-in-arms about single-parent households, which are *far* more prevalent than same-sex couples with children (a tiny minority) and *demonstrably* put their children at a statistical disadvantage? What about the millions of children in our own country growing up in poverty, which will *always* dwarf the number of kids with gay parents by several orders of magnitude.

These are issues that *everyone* can agree are hurting kids right now in overwhelming numbers, so you'd think they would dominate the arguments of people who claim to want what's best for kids. I think this gays-are-bad-for-society argument is a distraction from a more unpleasant argument.

Some additional Scandinavian statistics. Taken from an abstract commissioned by the New Jersey Family Policy Council.

Human civilization is built from the bottomup, not the top down. The first brick of the foundationis individual human life, and the secondbrick is the family.1 The Scandinavian countrieshave been experimenting with family structure formany years, and the results are quite disturbing.Do we really need to conduct our own experimentshere in New Jersey? The purpose of thisresearch report is to look at the hard data and let itspeak clearly for itself.

The trend of extending the legal rights andbenefits of marriage to ...

Some additional Scandinavian statistics. Taken from an abstract commissioned by the New Jersey Family Policy Council.

Human civilization is built from the bottomup, not the top down. The first brick of the foundationis individual human life, and the secondbrick is the family.1 The Scandinavian countrieshave been experimenting with family structure formany years, and the results are quite disturbing.Do we really need to conduct our own experimentshere in New Jersey? The purpose of thisresearch report is to look at the hard data and let itspeak clearly for itself.

The trend of extending the legal rights andbenefits of marriage to homosexual couples beganin Denmark in 1989.2 Norway followed in 1993and Sweden in 1994. These arrangements arereferred to as “de facto gay marriage,”3 and theresulting 10 to 15 years of data is instructive.Marriage is now becoming obsolete in thesecountries, concluded Stanley Kurtz in a 2004 article,“The End of Marriage in Scandinavia.”4 Hispainstaking research makes the case that Scandinaviahas run our experiment for us and theresults are in:

• A majority of children in Sweden and Norwayare born out of wedlock.
• 60 percent of first-born children in Denmarkhave unmarried parents.
• Sweden had the lowest marriage rate inrecorded history in 1997. Currently, Swedes marryless and bear more children out of wedlock thanany other industrialized nation.
• Divorce rates have become unreliable measuresof family dissolution because fewer peopleare getting married.
• Rising rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlockbirths now stand as the proxy for rising ratesof family dissolution.

In the ten years from 1990 to 2000, Norway’sout-of-wedlock birth rate went from 39 percentto 50 percent. Sweden’s went from 47 percent to55 percent.5 Most of the children in these countriesare now born out of wedlock. People arenot just delaying marriage; they are not botheringto get married. The traditional family is simplydisappearing.

What do these facts have to do with same-sex“marriage”? Quite a bit, as it turns out. Advocatesof same sex “marriage” claim that by giving gaysthe “freedom” to marry, the institution of marriageis strengthened. Not so, says Kurtz. The crux ofthe decline of marriage in Scandinavia — and theincreasing separation between marriage and parenthood— can be ...

In the ten years from 1990 to 2000, Norway’sout-of-wedlock birth rate went from 39 percentto 50 percent. Sweden’s went from 47 percent to55 percent.5 Most of the children in these countriesare now born out of wedlock. People arenot just delaying marriage; they are not botheringto get married. The traditional family is simplydisappearing.

What do these facts have to do with same-sex“marriage”? Quite a bit, as it turns out. Advocatesof same sex “marriage” claim that by giving gaysthe “freedom” to marry, the institution of marriageis strengthened. Not so, says Kurtz. The crux ofthe decline of marriage in Scandinavia — and theincreasing separation between marriage and parenthood— can be directly linked to same-sex“marriage.”6

The separation of marriage from parenthoodis at the root of the same-sex “marriage” argumentand at the root of ills brought about by the “evolution”of less traditional forms of marriage. “Homosexualmarriage has contributed to the dissolutionof marriage as a significant institution in Scandinavianculture, primarily by contributing to thenotion that marriage need have nothing to do withhaving children.”7

The vast majority of social science researchshows that marriage is uniquely important to children.In fact, a key barometer of the health of thefamily for any nation is the proportion of childrenwho reach early adulthood in an intact family.8“Not only is an intact family foundational for achild’s individual happiness and well-being butalso for the social and economic health of thenation’s next generation.”9

In the Nordic countries, the separation of marriagefrom parenthood was already increasing, andsame-sex “marriage” has further widened the gap.Instead of more people in Scandinavian societymarrying, same-sex “marriage” has only served tohighlight the message that marriage is irrelevantand that any form of parenthood is acceptable.Marriage rates for 2001 show declines in bothSweden and Denmark. Because many Scandinaviansnow raise children outside of marriage, evendivorce rates are unreliable measures of the weaknessof marriage and family.Throughout Scandinavia, cohabiting couples withchildren break up at two to three times the rate ofmarried parents.10 Sadly, the ones who suffer mostin ...

In the Nordic countries, the separation of marriagefrom parenthood was already increasing, andsame-sex “marriage” has further widened the gap.Instead of more people in Scandinavian societymarrying, same-sex “marriage” has only served tohighlight the message that marriage is irrelevantand that any form of parenthood is acceptable.Marriage rates for 2001 show declines in bothSweden and Denmark. Because many Scandinaviansnow raise children outside of marriage, evendivorce rates are unreliable measures of the weaknessof marriage and family.Throughout Scandinavia, cohabiting couples withchildren break up at two to three times the rate ofmarried parents.10 Sadly, the ones who suffer mostin all this chaos are the children. For all the talk ofdiscrimination against gays, a recent publicationconcludes that same-sex “marriage” discriminatesagainst children, essentially placing children’srights secondary to the rights of adults.11

For all the fuss over homosexuals’ “right”to marry, one would think that homosexualswould be coming to the altar in droves. Thefacts would indicate otherwise, and serve toeliminate one of the many smokescreensput up by gay activists.In Sweden the number of registeredsame-sex unions is reported to be only about1,500 (3,000 individuals). Using census estimates,the homosexual population is around140,000. Thus, only about 2 percent ofSwedish gays and lesbians have entered intoregistered unions; i.e., 98 percent of Swedishhomosexuals have chosen not to register.19Same-sex “marriage” has not broughtmore marriage; it has brought the destructionof marriage. A Norwegian sociologistsuggests tha...

For all the fuss over homosexuals’ “right”to marry, one would think that homosexualswould be coming to the altar in droves. Thefacts would indicate otherwise, and serve toeliminate one of the many smokescreensput up by gay activists.In Sweden the number of registeredsame-sex unions is reported to be only about1,500 (3,000 individuals). Using census estimates,the homosexual population is around140,000. Thus, only about 2 percent ofSwedish gays and lesbians have entered intoregistered unions; i.e., 98 percent of Swedishhomosexuals have chosen not to register.19Same-sex “marriage” has not broughtmore marriage; it has brought the destructionof marriage. A Norwegian sociologistsuggests that the low number of registeredgay couples might be understood as a “collectiveprotest against the expectations(presumably monogamy) embodied inmarriage.”20Gay activists in Scandinavia, having metall of their goals, now candidly admit thatthe case for homosexual “marriage” — particularlytheir argument that allowing gaysto marry encourages a monogamouslifestyle — was only a tactical argument.The point all along, apparently, was notmarriage but social approval for homosexuality.Having accomplished that, there isnow “little social approval for marriage.”21

Response to knslyr's first & second comment: The problem with these statistics is that they are not looking at the trend in out-of-wedlock births before and after the implementation of gay partnerships. As the original link explains, Norway legalized gay partnerships in 1993, and Sweden did so in 1994. If you want to show that gay partnerships had deleterious consequences, your best hope is to show that the trend was steeper AFTER the intervention than before it. These 1990 vs. 2000 stats don't do that. Nowhere in the NJFPC briefing do I find that they do that.

Response to knslyr's fourth comment: I don't find the lack of gays doing gay marriage particularly compelling. First of all, ...

Response to knslyr's first & second comment: The problem with these statistics is that they are not looking at the trend in out-of-wedlock births before and after the implementation of gay partnerships. As the original link explains, Norway legalized gay partnerships in 1993, and Sweden did so in 1994. If you want to show that gay partnerships had deleterious consequences, your best hope is to show that the trend was steeper AFTER the intervention than before it. These 1990 vs. 2000 stats don't do that. Nowhere in the NJFPC briefing do I find that they do that.

Response to knslyr's fourth comment: I don't find the lack of gays doing gay marriage particularly compelling. First of all, even if few gays are interested in marriage, the fact is there are gays who do; and it doesn't make sense to deprive them of that right just because they are in a minority. If you do think that makes sense, then you would also have to support aboloshing straight marriage in countries where the percent of straights who don't marry is very high. Second, de facto gay marriage hasn't been around for a while, and many gays have grown up with the expectation that they would never marry. It is entirely plausible that the % of gays who marry will reach parity with the % of straights who marry after future generations of gays have grown up knowing about this option.