Printer friendly version

May 26, 2004

Mired in the Day

Sorry about the lack of posts, yesterday. I'm a bit off — like the weather, which is giving us October in May.

Apart from my lone entry and some comment and email writing, I spent quite a while writing an entry that I decided it prudent not to post. (Suffice to say that I find comparisons between the Family Research Council and Nazis specious, to say the least, but am not optimistic that arguing as much will persuade those for whom it is not obvious.)

Then, ironically, I ultimately found myself unable to post a comment to this post by Gabriel Rosenberg because of "questionable content." (I've included the comment in an addendum, here; note that I didn't try to embed the image in my comment and even attempted to include the link merely as text.)

In the evening, we finally managed, after several days of attempts, to watch part of Two Towers in preparation for viewing Return of the King. Our daughter had been refusing to fall asleep until well after the time at which any substantial part of the film could be taken in. Tonight, if she'll allow it, we'll watch the Battle of Helms Deep.

Before night falls, lack of sleep and a surfeit of frustration notwithstanding, today is a new day. Well, on with it.

ADDENDUM:
My comment to Prof. Rosenberg:

A couple of really quick (and perhaps sloppy) answers.

The chart. Looking at the labels, one sees that the columns' height is "percentage of total births." It is this that has increased by two percentage points each year. The rounding of the table (I think it's the rounding) distorts the differences, but here's a quick idea of what it should look like (modified only from '94 on):

(click the image for the full-sized version)

The change from 1994 to 1995 was particularly affected by rounding; the difference was actually only 1.26, but 0.78 was added in the rounding. It might help to read Kurtz's piece, today, on NRO, and (I believe) he'll be publishing a more statistical piece thereon in the near future.

I should also point out that in the CBS numbers an out-of-wedlock birth is one where the mother was unmarried 307 days before the birth.
— Yes, but you should also point out that the corresponding lag is true for children born just after divorces and deaths.

it seems at times that Kurtz is arguing not that same-sex marriage will lead to an increase of out-of-wedlock birth, but rather the campaign for it will.
— Well, yes, he's been arguing that for a while, as have I. The concept of marriage that must become true in order for gay marriage to come into being is what hurts marriage, before and after the fact.

Posted by Justin Katz at May 26, 2004 7:12 AM
Diary & Confession
Comments

Yes, I reached the same conclusion as you did about the chart, as I explained in my post. The red bars were those where there was annual increase of two percentage points (provided we take the difference and then round that difference to the nearest percent). So, for example, as you note 1995 was an increase of 1.26 (blue), 1996 was increase of 1.47 (blue), 1998 was an increase of 1.62 (red). The latter is an example where the increase did not actually have to reach two percentage points, it only had to round to two percentage points. The description, "double the average annual increase of the past 15 years" is not a description of which bars are red (for else many blue bars would be red and, several red bars would be blue). He must mean that two percentage points is double the annual average annual increase for 1982-1996.

Pointing out the defintion of non-marital birth includes your claim as well. I was merely stating what the defintion was. I felt no need to explain either that a couple who married within 307 days prior to the birth would not effect the classification or that a couple who divorced within 307 days prior to the birth would also not effect the classification. I thought both conclusions were pretty clear from the definition.

I wonder what concept of marriage must be true in order for gay marriage to come into being? In any case, there is then no need to avoid gay marriage, only to avoid a certain concept. By your reasoning that will automatically preclude same-sex marriage. To work against same-sex marriage itself, though, is pointless as it is a mere benign effect and would still leave in place the pernicious cause.

Posted by: Gabriel Rosenberg at May 26, 2004 11:41 AM

In any case, there is then no need to avoid gay marriage, only to avoid a certain concept. By your reasoning that will automatically preclude same-sex marriage. To work against same-sex marriage itself, though, is pointless as it is a mere benign effect and would still leave in place the pernicious cause.

— Not quite. I've never ruled out the possibility — and I stated as much specifically in recent responses to you, I think — that circumstances could exist in which same-sex marriage could come about in the civic sphere without disrupting the idea of the institution. Those circumstances are not our own, and resisting, even failing, can perhaps at least turn the emphasis some.

But victory, unless you believe in a cosmically destined movement toward same-sex marriage, would not "leave in place the pernicious cause," because the concept at issue would have been effectively decided against.

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 26, 2004 11:52 AM

But what concept is it that you are fighting against? Kurtz seemed to mention two. One is that the law should recognize legal alternatives to marriage (registered parternships, civil unions, cohabitation agreements, cohabitation, etc.) I think there is a greater danger of these being instituted if we do not adopt SSM. The other is that marriage and parenthood are separate ideas. If by that he means a belief that marriage can have meaning independent of any children that may be born into it, I disagree that the concept is pernicious and I believe we have embraced this concept for thousands of years. If he means a belief that marriage is unimportant for child rearing, then I agree it is pernicious, but once again I think there is more danger in this concept beign embraced if we don't allow same-sex marriage. I also think there is a danger of people adopting this idea of we lead people to believe that agreeing that parenthood is not a necessary ingredient for marriage means believing it doesn't matter whether parents are married.

Posted by: Gabriel Rosenberg at May 26, 2004 12:48 PM

You could easily convince me that the comparison of the FRC and the Nazi regime is a specious one, because I am already convinced of that. The FRC as an institution is not even close to the power and ability of the Nazi party. I will agree with that and posted an entry to that effect (trackbacked). But this isn't the comparison that was made. The comparison is between the the rhetoric of the Nazi's against Jews in the 30's and the FRC demonization of gay men, women and families.

It is this demonization that is dangerous to me and other individuals. And I am losing my optimism that the opponents of SSM will ever be convinced of that and denounce it as the hate speech it is.

Posted by: Trey at May 27, 2004 3:44 PM

Prof. Rosenberg,

Well, I think we just come to different conclusions about shades of parenthood (I would say the fullest is in all senses, biological and rearing-wise) and about the bottom-line, real-world, practical effects of SSM on this equation.

--------

Trey,

Response here.

Posted by: Justin Katz at May 28, 2004 8:05 PM