Gay marriage will cause 900,000 abortions

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So say some conservatives filing a brief to the Supreme Court: http://gawker.com/conservative-lawyers-to-court-gay-marriage-will-cause-1699292335

lulz

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Even as an SSM opponent, I'd like to see some REAL evidence before I believe this claim. And pointing to the declining marriage rate in Iowa(ssm state) doesn't work as REAL evidence when the marriage rate is also declining in Texas (not an ssm state).

[All Along The Watchtower]

"If you let more people get married, less people will want to be married."

Impeccable logic.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"If you let more people get married, less people will want to be married."

Impeccable logic.

The funny thing is, the first state to get gay marriage, Massachusetts, has the lowest divorce rate per capita, despite there being 11 years of gay marriages that can get divorced.

[Joe Republic]

Only 900,000?  The gay agenda calls for at least a 30% increase on that over the next five years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Only 900,000?  The gay agenda calls for at least a 30% increase on that over the next five years.

Every straight fetus is to be aborted.

[SWE]

I would support this

[t_host1]

Only 900,000?  The gay agenda calls for at least a 30% increase on that over the next five years.

Every straight fetus is to be aborted.

I did not no this?

[Nutmeg]

Only 900,000?  The gay agenda calls for at least a 30% increase on that over the next five years.

Every straight fetus is to be aborted.

I did not no this?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Wonderful news!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The brief shows some major declines in states that recognized same-sex marriage. What they failed to do is to provide any meaningful comparison with the national rate - or whether changes in the national rate tracks with the abortion rate.  Communities with low marriage rates tend to have high abortion rates - but that is different from studying recent changes over time.

Having same-sex couples included in marriage is a major change, so it's not ridiculous to think it would have an impact on the rate of opposite-sex marriage, either positive or negative. People's interest in joining an institution will change based on the meaning and image of that institution that is communicated by society. And there's no reason to think that the change would happen within the span of a few years.  Most proponents of same sex marriage fundamentally misunderstand the perspective of the opposition and so leave their arguments largely unaddressed while going after strawmen - which is worrying to someone who supports gay marriage but doesn't always have a confident answer to these concerns. Jonathan Rauch has been an important exception in his ability to speak as a same-sex marriage proponent to a conservative perspective - and the data we have suggest he has been right about this: much greater of a threat to marriage than ssm is domestic partnerships / civil unions where these institutions have been extended to opposite sex couples.

[Ebowed]

Gay marriage is going to cause 900,000 abortions and all of the women who have these abortions are going to get breast cancer.

I think under the original plan, it was only supposed to cause 350,000 abortions, but due to the Hobby Lobby decision that number unfortunately had to be increased.  It's a shame, but there are consequences.

[Mechaman]

If anything this is a lowball figure.  Gay marriage is tantamount to genocide.

900,000?  HA!  More like 9,000,000, am I right?

[bedstuy]

The brief shows some major declines in states that recognized same-sex marriage. What they failed to do is to provide any meaningful comparison with the national rate - or whether changes in the national rate tracks with the abortion rate.  Communities with low marriage rates tend to have high abortion rates - but that is different from studying recent changes over time.

Having same-sex couples included in marriage is a major change, so it's not ridiculous to think it would have an impact on the rate of opposite-sex marriage, either positive or negative. People's interest in joining an institution will change based on the meaning and image of that institution that is communicated by society. And there's no reason to think that the change would happen within the span of a few years.  Most proponents of same sex marriage fundamentally misunderstand the perspective of the opposition and so leave their arguments largely unaddressed while going after strawmen - which is worrying to someone who supports gay marriage but doesn't always have a confident answer to these concerns. Jonathan Rauch has been an important exception in his ability to speak as a same-sex marriage proponent to a conservative perspective - and the data we have suggest he has been right about this: much greater of a threat to marriage than ssm is domestic partnerships / civil unions where these institutions have been extended to opposite sex couples.

Do you actually believe this is plausible?

[memphis]

The brief shows some major declines in states that recognized same-sex marriage. What they failed to do is to provide any meaningful comparison with the national rate - or whether changes in the national rate tracks with the abortion rate.  Communities with low marriage rates tend to have high abortion rates - but that is different from studying recent changes over time.

Having same-sex couples included in marriage is a major change, so it's not ridiculous to think it would have an impact on the rate of opposite-sex marriage, either positive or negative. People's interest in joining an institution will change based on the meaning and image of that institution that is communicated by society. And there's no reason to think that the change would happen within the span of a few years.  Most proponents of same sex marriage fundamentally misunderstand the perspective of the opposition and so leave their arguments largely unaddressed while going after strawmen - which is worrying to someone who supports gay marriage but doesn't always have a confident answer to these concerns. Jonathan Rauch has been an important exception in his ability to speak as a same-sex marriage proponent to a conservative perspective - and the data we have suggest he has been right about this: much greater of a threat to marriage than ssm is domestic partnerships / civil unions where these institutions have been extended to opposite sex couples.

Do you actually believe this is plausible?

Marriage is so gay!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The brief shows some major declines in states that recognized same-sex marriage. What they failed to do is to provide any meaningful comparison with the national rate - or whether changes in the national rate tracks with the abortion rate.  Communities with low marriage rates tend to have high abortion rates - but that is different from studying recent changes over time.

Having same-sex couples included in marriage is a major change, so it's not ridiculous to think it would have an impact on the rate of opposite-sex marriage, either positive or negative. People's interest in joining an institution will change based on the meaning and image of that institution that is communicated by society. And there's no reason to think that the change would happen within the span of a few years.  Most proponents of same sex marriage fundamentally misunderstand the perspective of the opposition and so leave their arguments largely unaddressed while going after strawmen - which is worrying to someone who supports gay marriage but doesn't always have a confident answer to these concerns. Jonathan Rauch has been an important exception in his ability to speak as a same-sex marriage proponent to a conservative perspective - and the data we have suggest he has been right about this: much greater of a threat to marriage than ssm is domestic partnerships / civil unions where these institutions have been extended to opposite sex couples.

Do you actually believe this is plausible?

Yes.  I think it would take a view of the human mind which is removed from its symbolic-cultural context and devoid of subconscious motivation to not be able to imagine that it would be.

[bedstuy]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

[bedstuy]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

[Brewer]

Shua is correct. I, personally, am no longer interested in ever marrying a woman, out of fear that some may mistake me for being homosexual.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Shua is correct. I, personally, am no longer interested in ever marrying a woman, out of fear that some may mistake me for being homosexual.

The polygynists will be happy to hear that. More women for them to marry if guys like you drop out of marriage because they're worried that people will think they are gay.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

The question is:  will the meaning attached to this in the form of marriage itself continue to be gendered?  There are two courses that could be taken with the existence of same-sex marriage:  either 1) the cultural associations with marriage will be stripped of any gendered character in its language, social expectations, ritual and imagery, or 2) we will see the development of parallel genderings, parallel cultural forms that characterize same gender marriages on the one hand and opposite gender marriages on the other.  The first of these I would expect could be potentially detrimental to the institution of marriage because it will sap the institution of some of its symbolic influence.  The second on the other hand could strengthen and reinforce the institution by adding new perspectives to the marriage tradition's cultural heritage.   We can expect to see some combination of the two opposing trends, but how this will develop we don't yet know.   

Meanwhile, there is also a risk to marriage from the continued lack of same sex marriage within the present context. If the institution is seen as exclusive, this could enhance the perception in some parts of society that it is outdated, and so we could expect to see some increase in less formal, less stable arrangements in its place.

[Torie]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

The question is:  will the meaning attached to this in the form of marriage itself continue to be gendered?  There are two courses that could be taken with the existence of same-sex marriage:  either 1) the cultural associations with marriage will be stripped of any gendered character in its language, social expectations, ritual and imagery, or 2) we will see the development of parallel genderings, parallel cultural forms that characterize same gender marriages on the one hand and opposite gender marriages on the other.  The first of these I would expect could be potentially detrimental to the institution of marriage because it will sap the institution of some of its symbolic influence.  The second on the other hand could strengthen and reinforce the institution by adding new perspectives to the marriage tradition's cultural heritage.   We can expect to see some combination of the two opposing trends, but how this will develop we don't yet know.  

Meanwhile, there is also a risk to marriage from the continued lack of same sex marriage within the present context. If the institution is seen as exclusive, this could enhance the perception in some parts of society that it is outdated, and so we could expect to see some increase in less formal, less stable arrangements in its place.

One  can always theorize about what people will do,  but is it not fair to say that the burden of proof is on the side of those arguing against conferring a right on some group, and that burden must be met by adducing into evidence real and persuasive data? Isn't this burden particularly salient to meet when, as is the case with most of us here on this issue, that the theorized predicted behavior change seems far fetched? Is there any evidence at all that SSM where it has been legalized has actually caused a decline in the marriage rate?

[Sopranos Republican]

shua with some scorching hot takes lately.

[bedstuy]

So, marriage will seem gay and straight people won't want to get married?  A man marrying a woman is still not going to seem gay, because, you know, they're marrying woman.

I said nothing about marriage "seeming gay."  But the idea that marriage is not tied to gender
could have an impact on its perceived role in a gendered relationship.

Do you admit at least that same-sex marriage might have a positive impact on the opposite-sex marriage rate?

I just do not see that at all.  Every relationship is actually tied to gender, unless both people are totally  bisexual.

The question is:  will the meaning attached to this in the form of marriage itself continue to be gendered?  There are two courses that could be taken with the existence of same-sex marriage:  either 1) the cultural associations with marriage will be stripped of any gendered character in its language, social expectations, ritual and imagery, or 2) we will see the development of parallel genderings, parallel cultural forms that characterize same gender marriages on the one hand and opposite gender marriages on the other.  The first of these I would expect could be potentially detrimental to the institution of marriage because it will sap the institution of some of its symbolic influence.  The second on the other hand could strengthen and reinforce the institution by adding new perspectives to the marriage tradition's cultural heritage.   We can expect to see some combination of the two opposing trends, but how this will develop we don't yet know.   

Meanwhile, there is also a risk to marriage from the continued lack of same sex marriage within the present context. If the institution is seen as exclusive, this could enhance the perception in some parts of society that it is outdated, and so we could expect to see some increase in less formal, less stable arrangements in its place.

In the words of the Talking Heads, you're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything. 

People don't get married because of their conception of the institution of marriage.  They get married because of their close, intimate, loving relationship with another person.  So, gender always matters, because a lesbian and a hetero man like ladies, and a gay man and a hetero lady like men.  Right?  And, people don't really take their social cues entirely from the law.  Honestly, I can't think of any situation where a straight person would choose not to get married because of same-sex marriage being legal. 

You're just completely speculating with no real argument or explanation that makes a lick of sense.  People could have made the same argument about interracial marriage.  Do you think that made people stop getting married because it associated marriage with the mongrelizing of the races?  You can deny somebody their rights with that kind of speculative nonsense.