Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Stubbs on November 30, 2012 at 5:27pm

The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...

Bottom line:  more research needs to be done, but SSM policy is taking a huge risk.

Permalink Reply by Garrett Kaiser on November 30, 2012 at 7:08pm

Eric, while I'm sure the leap that you're making is highly correlated, that isn't necessary causal to decreased birth rate.  I would suggest that decreased birth rates are more closely correlated with the changing dynamic of society (marriage taking place later in life, women becoming an increased portion of the workforce, women that rely less on men for traditional support roles, among other things).  Females have always been the driving force behind birth.  It's in their nature.  Reduce a woman's motivation to have children by creating society-based distractions, and lower birth rates will result.  How is SSM more causal than the changing of women's role in society?

Take the U.S. for example (although I hate using only one society as evidence to support my thesis, my assumption is that the U.S. is similar to other westernized countries).  Birth rates have been dropping here since 1900 - 2010, about half of what they were in 1900.  (See here:  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html).  There have only been laws in place allowing SSM (in only very few states) until just recently.  If SSM was only cause of the drop in birth rates, you would expect birth rates to be consistent when SSM was not allowed.  This is clearly not the case and points to many other factors as the cause.

Permalink Reply by Eric Stubbs on November 30, 2012 at 9:52pm

Ok, we are making some excellent progress and finding common ground. Garrett stipulates that SSM is an untested factor in population decline (notable that I totally agree and have been arguing this point). He lists the other significant factors as late marriage, working women, independent women, society, and I would add selfishness. So, the question becomes, which of those factors should government have any influence over? Answer: marriage (specifically marriage that will add to the next generation). The government encourages people to get married to populate; to create and raise the next generation. Government should not encourage SSM because it has a fatal flaw and will lead to a more rapid decline in the population (not the only factor, obviously, but a factor). This is societal suicide; and it is societal suicide funded by the American taxpayer (which I find unacceptable). No one can answer for me where the tipping point is, so it is a risk I am not willing to accept.

We must ask ourselves as non theists  what is our greater purpose? Are we Epicureans who are just in it for ourselves. Or, are we in it for humanity (Humanism, although I do not accept the widely accepted definition of Humanism, but that is another topic). We could also be in it for America, or family. I lean toward the America and family side of things. To make a strong America, we need some basic building blocks: resources (people included...offspring!), laws, wealth, well-being, and productivity (not all inclusive). Each of these building blocks should be greater OR more productive than that of other societies in order to keep America the greatest. I think America should be the greatest because I think we offer the best hope for the future (i.e., laws which prohibit religious slavery, etc.).

I'm very pleased with the progress of this discussion and look forward to more.

Permalink Reply by James Yount on November 30, 2012 at 10:10pm

Slippery slope fallacies abound here.

Permalink Reply by Eric Stubbs on November 30, 2012 at 11:07pm

James, your blind faith is stunning.  Is it dogma or ego that drives you to your conclusion?  What is your larger purpose so that I may understand?  I have answered all your questions, you have answered none of mine.  Let's give this Reason thing a chance.

Permalink Reply by James Yount on December 1, 2012 at 8:19am

It's not blind faith to NOT believe in something that has no supporting evidence.  You are using the same logic that a theist does. I have only had ONE question, where is your proof? You want to limit the rights of a group of individuals without any supporting evidence.  Your assertion that SSM will result in population decline is a slippery slope fallacy that is based on no evidence. WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE ERIC STUBBS?

Permalink Reply by Eric Stubbs on December 1, 2012 at 9:05am

The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...

The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...

The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...

Permalink Reply by Frances Miriam janusz on December 1, 2012 at 9:33am

Eric,

This isn't proof. Did you miss this from the end of Jesse's article?

"these are just my, admittedly, entirely speculative predictions for the decline of homosexuality as a direct result of the increasing legalization of gay marriage and the domestication of exclusively same-sex relationships"

If you want tax breaks limited tonfamilies that actually have children, why don't you lobby for that? The SSM issue isba red herring.

Permalink Reply by Frances Miriam janusz on December 1, 2012 at 12:25pm

Furthermore, even if Jesse Bering's speculation were right (which I'm extremely sceptical about, myself) his article only relates to the effect which SSM might have on the reproductive rates of society as a whole.
We simply can't known what effect if any the reduction in the reproduction rate of one segment of society might have on the rest. For instance, heterosexual women whose reproductive lives have been interrupted by divorce after marriage to a gay man, might be more likely to remain married and have more children if they are not derailed by a doomed marriage to someone whose real interests lie elsewhere.

Permalink Reply by Eric Stubbs on December 1, 2012 at 6:47pm

His theory is different than mine, but mine is supported by his data:  Birth rate among same-sex married couples is below sustainment levels and there is a very strong risk that that the relevant society will decline in population to the point of extinction.

If Americans are willing to take this risk, so be it.  Unfortunately when that society disappears, it will happen without a sound.  I guess I'm one of the few people alive today who cares that an entire demographic might disappear within a few hundred years helped along by government policy.

Thanks to all who participated.  I hope we can have similar discussions on other topics in the near future.

Permalink Reply by Joe H... on December 2, 2012 at 12:03pm

This has been a strange but interesting discussion.

 

My speculation on that point is that most men who marry but later come out of the closet don't do so until approaching middle age. Assuming the age difference between spouses is typical (not huge), then the wives of such men already would have had most of the kids they were going to have regardless of husband sexuality. Also, I want to add that it's my belief and supported by 'formerly gay' men on The Dr. Oz Show that not-always-heterosexual men marry women mainly to have kids. (Selfish jerks, in my opinion, but the women who marry them probably also share some blame.)

 

Personally, I think the 'naturally' gay male percentage of the population probably will decline, or is already declining, regardless of gay marriage (which I don't support). Why? Because family size is shrinking, and gay males are more likely to be later-borns. The increasing visibility of gay males will mask any decline for a long time.

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on May 10, 2013 at 7:06am

Michael, on June 4, 2012, posted "Indeed, it's very hard to divide most issues into 'liberal' or 'conservative'."

I find it impossibly hard. Risking oversimplification, I divide issues into progressive and conservative. I will explain only the former; the latter is well understood.

Several people here have identified assisted suicide, legal pot, and other rights we do not now enjoy. They can and perhaps will be made real by libertarians or progressives.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page