Who really supports 'family values'?

[Hatman 🍁]

Just an interesting statistic I picked up today from the paper:

Percentage of households that have one parent:
*Netherlands: 3.5%
*Belgium: 4.3%

Both of these countries allow gay mairrages

*United States: 10.6%

I have a feeling allowing gays to marry has nothing to do with corrupting family values.

[opebo]

You have to  understand that the Netherland and Belgium are far, far richer countries than the United States, at least in terms of the standard of living and quality of life of the common people.  Quite simply they support families with real resources (high wages and a generous welfare state), not just a lot of offensive moralistic diatribes.

[Colin]

You have to  understand that the Netherland and Belgium are far, far richer countries than the United States, at least in terms of the standard of living and quality of life of the common people.  Quite simply they support families with real resources (high wages and a generous welfare state), not just a lot of offensive moralistic diatribes.

Well I wouldn't say that they are far far better. The UN rankings, which can be found here show that while the Netherlands and Belgium have a higher, at fifth and sixth respectively, well being than the United States, which is number 8. This is not a very large difference though. Is their much difference between the quality of life in the United Kingdom or Germany when compared to the United States or the Netherlands? I would probably say that the top 20 countries on that index are not very different from each other in terms of well-being and that their placement has more to do with small advantages in GDP per capita, do not know if they use perchasing power parity though, and possibly life expectancy. As in Japan is probably hurt by the ongoing recession in that country while the US is probably hurt more by having a lower life expectancy than some of the other nations, due to a number of reasons obesity being the most likely. This leads to the assumption that this scale, which is probably the most accurate measure of "standard of living" or "well-being", really doesn't show much of a difference in the living standards of the top 20 or top 30 nations. If you believe that the United States has a much worse standard of living/quality of life/well-being than places like the Netherlands and Belgium than Germany, which is number 19, must be a complete third world sh**thole.

In response to the first post I have to say that other nations have higher rates than the US and have higher number of birth from unmarried women than the United States. Both Denmark and Sweden have over twice the amount of births to unmarried women, as a percent of births, than the United States. Denmark also comes close to the United States in terms of teenage single mothers as a percentage of all mothers. This information can all be found here. It is from the March 1990 edition of the Monthly Labor Review. Granted the data is rather old and only a certain set number of countries are compared but the data is still rather interesting.

[Hatman 🍁]

You have to  understand that the Netherland and Belgium are far, far richer countries than the United States, at least in terms of the standard of living and quality of life of the common people.  Quite simply they support families with real resources (high wages and a generous welfare state), not just a lot of offensive moralistic diatribes.

Well I wouldn't say that they are far far better. The UN rankings, which can be found here show that while the Netherlands and Belgium have a higher, at fifth and sixth respectively, well being than the United States, which is number 8. This is not a very large difference though. Is their much difference between the quality of life in the United Kingdom or Germany when compared to the United States or the Netherlands? I would probably say that the top 20 countries on that index are not very different from each other in terms of well-being and that their placement has more to do with small advantages in GDP per capita, do not know if they use perchasing power parity though, and possibly life expectancy. As in Japan is probably hurt by the ongoing recession in that country while the US is probably hurt more by having a lower life expectancy than some of the other nations, due to a number of reasons obesity being the most likely. This leads to the assumption that this scale, which is probably the most accurate measure of "standard of living" or "well-being", really doesn't show much of a difference in the living standards of the top 20 or top 30 nations. If you believe that the United States has a much worse standard of living/quality of life/well-being than places like the Netherlands and Belgium than Germany, which is number 19, must be a complete third world sh**thole.

In response to the first post I have to say that other nations have higher rates than the US and have higher number of birth from unmarried women than the United States. Both Denmark and Sweden have over twice the amount of births to unmarried women, as a percent of births, than the United States. Denmark also comes close to the United States in terms of teenage single mothers as a percentage of all mothers. This information can all be found here. It is from the March 1990 edition of the Monthly Labor Review. Granted the data is rather old and only a certain set number of countries are compared but the data is still rather interesting.

That doesn't explain the Netherlands and Belgium though.  It looks to me like "moral decay" is not happening in countries that support Same-sex marriage.

[Colin]

You have to  understand that the Netherland and Belgium are far, far richer countries than the United States, at least in terms of the standard of living and quality of life of the common people.  Quite simply they support families with real resources (high wages and a generous welfare state), not just a lot of offensive moralistic diatribes.

Well I wouldn't say that they are far far better. The UN rankings, which can be found here show that while the Netherlands and Belgium have a higher, at fifth and sixth respectively, well being than the United States, which is number 8. This is not a very large difference though. Is their much difference between the quality of life in the United Kingdom or Germany when compared to the United States or the Netherlands? I would probably say that the top 20 countries on that index are not very different from each other in terms of well-being and that their placement has more to do with small advantages in GDP per capita, do not know if they use perchasing power parity though, and possibly life expectancy. As in Japan is probably hurt by the ongoing recession in that country while the US is probably hurt more by having a lower life expectancy than some of the other nations, due to a number of reasons obesity being the most likely. This leads to the assumption that this scale, which is probably the most accurate measure of "standard of living" or "well-being", really doesn't show much of a difference in the living standards of the top 20 or top 30 nations. If you believe that the United States has a much worse standard of living/quality of life/well-being than places like the Netherlands and Belgium than Germany, which is number 19, must be a complete third world sh**thole.

In response to the first post I have to say that other nations have higher rates than the US and have higher number of birth from unmarried women than the United States. Both Denmark and Sweden have over twice the amount of births to unmarried women, as a percent of births, than the United States. Denmark also comes close to the United States in terms of teenage single mothers as a percentage of all mothers. This information can all be found here. It is from the March 1990 edition of the Monthly Labor Review. Granted the data is rather old and only a certain set number of countries are compared but the data is still rather interesting.

That doesn't explain the Netherlands and Belgium though.  It looks to me like "moral decay" is not happening in countries that support Same-sex marriage.

I don't know. I would need to see more data on families in countries with same sex marriage and see if those actually are affected by a certain nation having a more liberal treatment of marriage. I personally see this as a rather weak argument for gay marriage, the argument that I agree with the most is the personal freedom arguement.

[Alcon]

Frankly, I have always found the "family values" argument to be a straw man. I do not think that the institution of marriage will be ruined by gay people getting married. If heterosexuals say "hey, let's not get married because gay people can do it too!", I already question how strong the "institution" is.

[Hatman 🍁]

Frankly, I have always found the "family values" argument to be a straw man. I do not think that the institution of marriage will be ruined by gay people getting married. If heterosexuals say "hey, let's not get married because gay people can do it too!", I already question how strong the "institution" is.

While it's true that family values can only be strengthed by allowing gay marriage, I just figured that this was a way of showing that people who think that family values would be effected by gay marriage are not thinking straight.

[patrick1]

According to to the National Center for Health Statistics, unmarried women accounted for 68 percent of black births in 2002 compared to 43.4 percent for Hispanics and 22.9 percent for whites. In 1965, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks stood at 25 percent.

I think your argument that somehow gay marriage is related to out of wedlock relationships is pretty fanciful and not addressing the issue.  The real problem is in the general feeling in our culture that somehow the above statistic is not disturbing.  Our culture has been force fed this idiotic girl power, I don't need no man and feminist empowerment b.s. down our throat.  Young woman have been led to believe that just because it is possible to raise a child on your own that it is adviseable.  Young men have failed to take responsibility for their actions because we live in a society where we avoid things that are difficult at all costs and always choose the path of least resistance.  My own mother was a single mom for sometime (natural father was a p.o.s.).  Being a single parent is extraordinarily difficult and you cannot substitute the role of a father.  In summation, Dan Quayle was right,  albeit awkward, about Murphy Brown.

[Hatman 🍁]

My point is that they have nothing to do with eachother. My point is that the people who think that gay marriages will hurt family values are all wrong. I know they have no relation.

[patrick1]

My point is that they have nothing to do with eachother. My point is that the people who think that gay marriages will hurt family values are all wrong. I know they have no relation.

Sorry I Misread the intent of your post and went out on a tangent there.  The rate of out of wedlock births is extremely frightening.  I don't really care about civil unions- I would just prefer it not be called marriage and refuse to myself.  I feel the traditional family structure- man and wife is the basis of a stable family- although most households are not exactly stable. 

[Jake]

Using the statistics Patrick posted, I would think the low numbers of the low countries would have more to do with the low proportion of blacks/Hispanics compared to the US.

[Richard]

Just an interesting statistic I picked up today from the paper:

Percentage of households that have one parent:
*Netherlands: 3.5%
*Belgium: 4.3%

Both of these countries allow gay mairrages

*United States: 10.6%

I have a feeling allowing gays to marry has nothing to do with corrupting family values.

*yawn* study error.

[patrick1]

Using the statistics Patrick posted, I would think the low numbers of the low countries would have more to do with the low proportion of blacks/Hispanics compared to the US.

ssshhh. you don't want to be called a racist for pointing out the truth do you.  

A main contribution is the black youth culture that is being put forth.  There was a time when some hip hop groups had a message- now they extol the virtues of materialism, violence and promiscuous sex.  The future appears bleak- time was that you could count on the older generation or grandparents- now these same grandparents are the ones who abadoned their own children.  White people are no better and are on the same path.

[The Duke]

Well, those numbers, while still lower than the US number actually have gotten wrose since gay marriage was legalized.  Trends matter, too.

I'd also direct people's attention to countries like Norway and Sweden, which legalized gay marriage or civil unions and now see 50% of first children born out of wedlock.

[patrick1]

Well, those numbers, while still lower than the US number actually have gotten wrose since gay marriage was legalized.  Trends matter, too.

I'd also direct people's attention to countries like Norway and Sweden, which legalized gay marriage or civil unions and now see 50% of first children born out of wedlock.

This is all part of a modern global conceit that believes through the force of our egos, money etc.  we can turn thousands of years of evolution and tradition on its head.

[Beet]

Using the statistics Patrick posted, I would think the low numbers of the low countries would have more to do with the low proportion of blacks/Hispanics compared to the US.

ssshhh. you don't want to be called a racist for pointing out the truth do you.  

Actually, the most powerful conversationalist is the one who says what everyone else is thinking.

Personally I think most small European countries (and Asian countries) have a lot of social capital, partly due to their homogeneity, not only racially but economically, culturally, and geographically. The larger the case, generally the less social capital you'll have. There's a Madisonian argument somewhat similiar to this. Of course, this tends to limit their long-term competitiveness (ala Japan) but it does tend to make getting the social indicators down easier.

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, those numbers, while still lower than the US number actually have gotten wrose since gay marriage was legalized.  Trends matter, too.

I'd also direct people's attention to countries like Norway and Sweden, which legalized gay marriage or civil unions and now see 50% of first children born out of wedlock.

I'm not so sure how these married gay fellows are able to have children out of wedlock

[Jens]

I'd also direct people's attention to countries like Norway and Sweden, which legalized gay marriage or civil unions and now see 50% of first children born out of wedlock.

It is extremely common to live together and get children without getting married. If I may use an example from one of my friend. He and his wife got married last year after having lived together for nearly 10 years and finding time to get 3 children in that period. Unmarried couples are almost legally equalized with married couples.

[Ebowed]

Well, those numbers, while still lower than the US number actually have gotten wrose since gay marriage was legalized.  Trends matter, too.

I'd also direct people's attention to countries like Norway and Sweden, which legalized gay marriage or civil unions and now see 50% of first children born out of wedlock.

I'm not so sure how these married gay fellows are able to have children out of wedlock

I think the point he was making is that once homosexual marriage is legalized, "family values" are disregarded and people start having their children out of wedlock.  A correlation of some sort.

[opebo]

Using the statistics Patrick posted, I would think the low numbers of the low countries would have more to do with the low proportion of blacks/Hispanics compared to the US.

ssshhh. you don't want to be called a racist for pointing out the truth do you.  

This has nothing to do with the race of the poor, but rather with the racism of the majority.  In places like the Netherlands and Belgium, the poor looked like everyone else, so they instituted a generous welfare state.  In america, though many poor are white, a lot of them are a different colour than the ruling race, and therefore it is easy to make racist arguments that they 'deserve' their poverty.  The majority do not identify with them due to racism, and are quite happy to see them suffer oppression.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Opebo: you don't know much about the Low Country do you?

[David S]

Just an interesting statistic I picked up today from the paper:

Percentage of households that have one parent:
*Netherlands: 3.5%
*Belgium: 4.3%

Both of these countries allow gay mairrages

*United States: 10.6%

I have a feeling allowing gays to marry has nothing to do with corrupting family values.

A correlation does not prove cause and effect.

[Beet]

What exactly is "family values" anyways? Due to the way politicians keep using it for whatever their current mood seems to be its about as decipherable as "Operation Overlord" was to Berlin Betty.

[opebo]

What exactly is "family values" anyways? Due to the way politicians keep using it for whatever their current mood seems to be its about as decipherable as "Operation Overlord" was to Berlin Betty.

Family Values is a code phrase for theocracy and elimination of freedom.

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, those numbers, while still lower than the US number actually have gotten wrose since gay marriage was legalized.  Trends matter, too.

I'd also direct people's attention to countries like Norway and Sweden, which legalized gay marriage or civil unions and now see 50% of first children born out of wedlock.

I'm not so sure how these married gay fellows are able to have children out of wedlock

I think the point he was making is that once homosexual marriage is legalized, "family values" are disregarded and people start having their children out of wedlock.  A correlation of some sort.

That has about as much bearing as the correlation I have provided. As stated by another poster a  correlation does not prove cause and effect.