Help refute an anti-gay essay "Beyond Soddom and Gammorah" masquerading as science

[Belz...]

Laws that prohibit consentual homosexual behaviour are popular with both voters and the legislators they elect (after all, by and large they are drawn from the same pool), but they are not good laws.

Okay, right. I didn't mean "does it satisfy the majority, as in 50% +1 of the voters and legislators", but I see what you guys mean. Thanks.

[kmortis]

I would say not entirely, though of course it depends a little on how you define "satisfy." In some sense, perhaps, strong medicine satisfies you if it does its job, but it's a different sense of the word. In many cases those factors determine whether the law satisfies standards that legislators and voters alike would waive if they could. The subject under discussion might be one of the best illustrations of the mirror-opposite of CEO's example of laws that are satisfactory but essentially without merit. Vermont's civil union law was brought about and ultimately shaped not by the desire of legislators to do something demanded by the voters, but by a Supreme Court mandate and the expectation of immediate judicial review. The voters didn't want it, and the legislature dreaded it. In some districts the voters made their dissatisfaction clear by dumping the legislators. Even Howard Dean, despite his later pride in the whole business, signed the law behind closed doors.

I think to CEO's little list of qualifications for merit I would have added "Is it constitutional?"
Except that, at the end of the day, it's not the legislators' call if it is constitutional, that's the Courts to say. It's a good thing for the Legislators to keep in mind, so they don't pass too many laws that later get struck down (much like many of the New Deal laws).

Of course, the constitutionality question is only valid for those of us who have a constitution. Every country has law makers, most have voters, but not all have constitutions.

[ceo_esq]

Not impressed with Prof.Allen's article. It is highly ivory tower.

Not sure what you mean by that apparent criticism, but it smacks of an anti-intellectualism unbecoming for a learned profession like ours.


Examples of false premises:

1. Most people believe that marriage is about love.
Response: Who cares what most people believe?

That is not a premise of Allen's case, and the fact that you mistook it for one is not encouraging. It is, more or less, a potential premise of an argument to which Allen is presenting a counterargument, and when you respond by saying "Who cares what most people believe?", you're basically echoing one of his points: it doesn't matter whether most people believe that marriage is about love, because the evidence supports the conclusion that marriage is "primarily ... designed to regulate procreative behavior because the private incentives of men and women at various points in their life cycles are often incompatible with the social objectives of the marriage."


2. No-fault divorce is a disaster.
Response: Prior to no-fault divorce, husbands moved away from their wives, paid support behind the scenes to support the false impression of a continuing marriage, children grew up and knew parents hated each other. The only difference is that women didn't change their names back to their family name as they are doing today.

No doubt some of that happened (although I think more often, spouses privately bargained to obtain consent to a purportedly fault-based divorce). But what's your evidence that there was no substantive change? Economists still found that women's poverty generally increased (and children's welfare decreased, incidentally) after divorce, regardless of whether they were in an unhappy marriage before. And think of the marriage choices that would not have been made under a fault-based standard! There doesn't seem much point these days in defending no-fault divorce from an economic and social efficiency standpoint. To my knowledge, it's been almost a couple of decades since serious social scientists in the area stopped attempting to, and one of the reasons is the effect no-fault divorce has on perversely incentivizing both inefficient marriages and inefficient divorces:

... if the arrangements at divorce underestimate the costs of divorce [as no-fault regimes tend to do], a divorce can occur when the net benefits of all affected parties are negative. Consequently, with no-fault divorce, a divorce can easily occur when the benefits to all family members are less than their costs. Still, as far as divorcing spouses are concerned, their benefits exceed their costs, so the divorce seems reasonable and rational to them.

No-fault divorce is attractive to some people because it permits someone who made an incorrect decision about a relationship to escape from his or her commitment at a fairly low cost. As the costs of poor decisions are reduced, rational people respond by expending less effort to avoid them. Predictably, the result is more poor decisions about prospective spouses. No-fault divorce can also reduce the compensation to people who have made sacrifices based on their marriage being a long-term commitment. Consequently, people have weaker incentives to make these sacrifices. In terms of incentives, no-fault divorce has to be viewed as a very unattractive system. Because a marriage can be dissolved unilaterally, often at a very low cost [to the individual], people have less incentive to search diligently for a spouse, and after marriage they have less incentive to make sacrifices for the benefit of the family.

In summary, the fault divorce statutes were usually employed by parties to limit divorces to circumstances in which the spouses mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage. This encouraged people to search diligently and to make the sacrifices that lie at the core of the gains from marriage. The major problem with fault divorce was that it made it potentially costly for a spouse who had made an ill-advised decision to marry. Meanwhile, from the perspective of incentives, there is little to say in defense of no-fault divorce because it discourages diligent search and commitment to marriage.

(Source: A.M. Parkman, "Mutual Consent Divorce", in The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce (Cambridge UP 2002))


There's no reason why these laws don't work equally well for homosexuals.

They can certainly be applied to homosexuals. Do you have any authority to suggest that they work equally efficiently when applied to homosexuals, particularly from the standpoint of regulating incentives?


So, at the risk of repeating myself, this entire issue is all about a large group of theists whose holy books hold that homosexuality is an abomination against God, and they don't want homos married because that imports this believed sinful behavior into an approved status under law.

Nice non sequitur. Dare we ask to see some persuasive evidence for that chestnut?

[bruto]

Except that, at the end of the day, it's not the legislators' call if it is constitutional, that's the Courts to say. It's a good thing for the Legislators to keep in mind, so they don't pass too many laws that later get struck down (much like many of the New Deal laws).

Of course, the constitutionality question is only valid for those of us who have a constitution. Every country has law makers, most have voters, but not all have constitutions.


Granted, I'm speaking mainly of the U.S. here. I imagine you're right that many legislators have forgotten that they're supposed to be upholding and enforcing the constitution, and think of it more as an obstacle than a goal, but I think that as a member of a list of potential merits by which to measure legislation, constitutionality should still count, and I think somehow the issue has gotten turned around. The question was what other than the satisfaction of voters and legislators constitutes the merit of a law. CEO produced a list of other merits. If these merits were part of what constitutes the satisfaction of voters and legislators, there would be no list.

And as I said, in the Vermont case, civil unions came about essentially as an order from the Supreme Court: "write a law that meets the constitutional standard of equal protection....or else." That's a bit unusual, of course, but it can happen, and it's not all that different from what happens when a law is struck down by the courts and must be rewritten or replaced. At that point, the presumed satisfaction of the legislators and voters has been overridden, and the constitutionality jumps to the top of the list when it is revised.

[kjkent1]

Not sure what you mean by that apparent criticism, but it smacks of an anti-intellectualism unbecoming for a learned profession like ours.Ad hominem.That is not a premise of Allen's case, and the fact that you mistook it for one is not encouraging.Ad hominem.No doubt some of that happened (although I think more often, spouses privately bargained to obtain consent to a purportedly fault-based divorce). But what's your evidence that there was no substantive change? Economists still found that women's poverty generally increased (and children's welfare decreased, incidentally) after divorce, regardless of whether they were in an unhappy marriage before. And think of the marriage choices that would not have been made under a fault-based standard! There doesn't seem much point these days in defending no-fault divorce from an economic and social efficiency standpoint. To my knowledge, it's been almost a couple of decades since serious social scientists in the area stopped attempting to, and one of the reasons is the effect no-fault divorce has on perversely incentivizing both inefficient marriages and inefficient divorces:You keep talking about economic efficiency as if it were a goal of family law legislation. Family law ia all about emotion and tribal taboos handed down since the beginning of time. Legislators don't sit around thinking about what's economically efficient -- they just try to improve their votes among the various interest groups that can keep them in office. Economic efficiency is a red herring.They can certainly be applied to homosexuals. Do you have any authority to suggest that they work equally efficiently when applied to homosexuals, particularly from the standpoint of regulating incentives?At the risk of frightening you into thinking I'm unbecoming a member of the legal profession, I'll repeat again, family law need not be economically efficient -- it need only satisfy the largest number of voters. All other issues are red herrings.Nice non sequitur. Dare we ask to see some persuasive evidence for that chestnut?Another ad hominem. You need fresher bait if you want to get me to bite.

"about six in 10 people felt homosexual relationships are 'against God's will,'..." Copyright (c) 2005 Associated Press (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-10-gay-marriage-poll_x.htm)

[ceo_esq]

Ad hominem.

We already know your "ivory tower" comment was an ad hominem. The question is, exactly what did you mean by it?


That is not a premise of Allen's case, and the fact that you mistook it for one is not encouraging. It is, more or less, a potential premise of an argument to which Allen is presenting a counterargument, and when you respond by saying "Who cares what most people believe?", you're basically echoing one of his points: it doesn't matter whether most people believe that marriage is about love, because the evidence supports the conclusion that marriage is "primarily ... designed to regulate procreative behavior because the private incentives of men and women at various points in their life cycles are often incompatible with the social objectives of the marriage."

Ad hominem.

You've just managed not to address the substance of what I said there, which I have helpfully placed in boldface above.


You keep talking about economic efficiency as if it were a goal of family law legislation. Family law ia all about emotion and tribal taboos handed down since the beginning of time. Legislators don't sit around thinking about what's economically efficient -- they just try to improve their votes among the various interest groups that can keep them in office. Economic efficiency is a red herring.

There is abundant evidence that economic efficiency - which as a general matter tends toward overall social good - is one of the driving forces behind the development of family law, just as with contract law, tort law, or many other areas of law. And if for some reason it were not a goal of family law, it should be, and so is a perfectly valid perspective from which to approach the questions we've been discussing.


At the risk of frightening you into thinking I'm unbecoming a member of the legal profession, I'll repeat again, family law need not be economically efficient -- it need only satisfy the largest number of voters. All other issues are red herrings.

You seem to be repeating Belz's earlier sentiment that law can or should have no other merits than satisfying the largest number of voters. Haven't we put that to rest? Law A could satisfy a larger number of voters than Law B, yet meet fewer of the criteria on the (non-exhaustive) list I proposed earlier. A good law may or may not be popular, but the most popular law is not necessarily the best or even a good one. How can you say that all other considerations besides popularity are "red herrings"?

Also, if what you say were true, it would actually undercut the case for same-sex marriage, because it implies that if - in a given state - most voters favor restricting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, then a law reflecting that position is per se better than a law reflecting a contrary position.

Since you haven't responded to my request for some supporting evidence, I'll infer from all this - unless you show me otherwise - that you have no idea of whether permitting same-sex unions or prohibiting them achieves better overall economic results for the society.


Nice non sequitur. Dare we ask to see some persuasive evidence for that chestnut?

Another ad hominem. You need fresher bait if you want to get me to bite.

How on earth is pointing out that what you've just said doesn't logically follow from what preceded, and asking you for evidence to support it, an ad hominem?


"about six in 10 people felt homosexual relationships are 'against God's will,'..." Copyright (c) 2005 Associated Press (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-04-10-gay-marriage-poll_x.htm)

Do you really think this in any way justifies your assertion that "this entire issue is all about a large group of theists whose holy books hold that homosexuality is an abomination against God"? Let's examine this for a moment, and for that purpose let's assume for the sake of argument that the poll data is accurate and can be generalized.

Six in 10 Americans think homosexual relationships are against God's will; fine. Do all of them oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions)? After all, it's possible to think - as many religious people do - that something is sinful without being in favor of legislation against it.

For those who do oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions) on that basis, are religious grounds the sole grounds on which they oppose it? After all, it's possible to oppose something on more than one basis. As for those who do oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions) solely on the basis of religion, does that mean that no one else can consider alternative grounds for a decision, and it is impossible to "concur in the result" but reach that result on a different basis?

What about all the relevant jurisprudence that apparently has nothing to do with religion?

In fact, how much of the past few pages of this discussion has had anything to do with religion? Not much, as far as I can see.

[Lonewulf]

I'm going to have to agree with ceo_esq on a couple of points, notably that involving popularity of a law. If laws were entirely set up based on their popularity, then what is the point of the bill of rights, or the constitution? Also, what would be the point of the supreme court?

[Belz...]

Agreed, Wulf. I've conceded this point a few posts back.

[Lonewulf]

Agreed, Wulf. I've conceded this point a few posts back.

Okay. So, moving on then.

There is abundant evidence that economic efficiency - which as a general matter tends toward overall social good - is one of the driving forces behind the development of family law, just as with contract law, tort law, or many other areas of law. And if for some reason it were not a goal of family law, it should be, and so is a perfectly valid perspective from which to approach the questions we've been discussing.

Is not equality one of the driving forces behind similar laws? At one point of time, interracial marriage was illegal, and there were legal considerations for those with mixed blood. A lot of it had to do with slavery and the economic considerations of such.

Slavery was gotten rid of, but not bans on interracial marriage. Now bans on interracial marriage are gone. Why not the same for bans on homosexual marriage?

To put it another way...

What grave harm is there in legalizing gay marriage? What end to civilization will occur? When will we turn into a Mad Max post apocalypse world filled with half naked raiders and a cunning and attractive male lead with an australian accent?

[bruto]

For those who do oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions) on that basis, are religious grounds the sole grounds on which they oppose it? After all, it's possible to oppose something on more than one basis. As for those who do oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions) solely on the basis of religion, does that mean that no one else can consider alternative grounds for a decision, and it is impossible to "concur in the result" but reach that result on a different basis?

What about all the relevant jurisprudence that apparently has nothing to do with religion?

In fact, how much of the past few pages of this discussion has had anything to do with religion? Not much, as far as I can see.

You keep bringing up this theoretical basis for opposing gay marriage on grounds other than the ahorrence of homosexuality, but outside of the theoretical realm, is there any evidence that anyone actually is saying "I'm perfectly OK with gay marriage as far as the sexual part is concerned, but I don't think it's efficient enough, so I'm going to vote to forbid it? " The theoretical arguments might seem reasonable, and they may justify your use of the word "sole" above, but with the possible exception of people who like to sift every argument through the finest sieve (no offense, CEO, but I somehow picture you as the kind of guy who carries a roll of duct tape in his back pocket just in case the belt and suspenders both fail), I do not believe that these arguments are coming from people who would actually, honestly, approve of gay marriage if the economic benefits and family-law efficiency were demonstrated satisfactorily. I have yet to see someone who argues on any grounds against extending marriage to homosexuals who is not motivated by a religious or moral objection to homosexuality.

[ceo_esq]

You keep bringing up this theoretical basis for opposing gay marriage on grounds other than the ahorrence of homosexuality, but outside of the theoretical realm, is there any evidence that anyone actually is saying "I'm perfectly OK with gay marriage as far as the sexual part is concerned, but I don't think it's efficient enough, so I'm going to vote to forbid it?"

[snip]

... I do not believe that these arguments are coming from people who would actually, honestly, approve of gay marriage if the economic benefits and family-law efficiency were demonstrated satisfactorily. I have yet to see someone who argues on any grounds against extending marriage to homosexuals who is not motivated by a religious or moral objection to homosexuality.

I guess my initial reaction to this is to ask why it should matter, in addressing a particular argument against a change in law, whether some (or even all) of the people opposing the change would still oppose it even if that particular argument went away.

The part of the national same-sex marriage debate I'm most familiar with is, of course, the part that unfolds within in the legal system. There, you rarely hear an argument based on moral objections to homosexuality, and virtually never one based on religious objections. The most common arguments there do have a strong, if sometimes subtle, efficiency component, in that they often boil down to a matter of the state arguing that it probably wouldn't get much "bang for its buck" in applying marriage laws to same-sex couples. It strikes me as immaterial whether the same people also harbor unspoken or unofficial religious objections to marriage. I don't even see a necessary benefit in inquiring more deeply into whether they do or not. To me, a "theoretical argument" is one that isn't actually in play, and a real argument is one that is in play. So perhaps you can understand why, from a legal policy standpoint, I view arguments based on abhorrence of homosexuality as the "theoretical" ones, whereas the ones you think of as theoretical are the ones I treat as real.

[kjkent1]

We already know your "ivory tower" comment was an ad hominem. The question is, exactly what did you mean by it?Ad hominem.

You've just managed not to address the substance of what I said there, which I have helpfully placed in boldface above.

If I were to ask you under oath, whether you had any personal religious objections to homosexual marriage, how would you answer?

There is abundant evidence that economic efficiency - which as a general matter tends toward overall social good - is one of the driving forces behind the development of family law, just as with contract law, tort law, or many other areas of law. And if for some reason it were not a goal of family law, it should be, and so is a perfectly valid perspective from which to approach the questions we've been discussing.The issue is how to refute an anti-gay essay re homosexual marriage -- not family law in general. The question is whether your economic efficiency argument is a red herring to disguise a religious-bias against homosexuals, i.e., that their behavior is an abomination against God, and therefore should not be impressed into law.

You seem to be repeating Belz's earlier sentiment that law can or should have no other merits than satisfying the largest number of voters. Haven't we put that to rest? Law A could satisfy a larger number of voters than Law B, yet meet fewer of the criteria on the (non-exhaustive) list I proposed earlier. A good law may or may not be popular, but the most popular law is not necessarily the best or even a good one. How can you say that all other considerations besides popularity are "red herrings"?If you answer the question above, honestly, re the true rationale for wanting to ban homosexual marriage, you would simultaneously admit that all other considerations are indeed red herrings.

Now a follow-up question:

Please describe any substantive difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage, where existing family law does not adequately resolve disputes for either relationship.

Also, if what you say were true, it would actually undercut the case for same-sex marriage, because it implies that if - in a given state - most voters favor restricting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, then a law reflecting that position is per se better than a law reflecting a contrary position.There's no such thing as a "better" law, because "better" requires a value judgment that is outside of the realm of jurisprudence.

The law is just the law -- whether it is better or worse is for legislatures and the People to decide. Judges are only charged with "interpreting" the Will of the People -- not evaluating the propriety of that Will (except when a law is so irrational that no legislature could possibly have conceived of any legitimate reason for enacting said law).

Since you haven't responded to my request for some supporting evidence, I'll infer from all this - unless you show me otherwise - that you have no idea of whether permitting same-sex unions or prohibiting them achieves better overall economic results for the society.As I have repeatedly stated, economic efficiency is irrelevant to the discussion.

However, my legal opinion, which is effectively expert on family law, because I've practice enough of it to know how it works in just about every reasonably conceivable circumstance, is that there is no situation where permitting homosexual marriage would have any substantive effect on economics one way or the other, EXCEPT, that by recognizing gay marriage, at the federal level, the Social Security Administration would have to permit gay spouses survivor benefits, and that would reduce existing SS actuarial estimates from their already "headed for bankrupt" status, to something slightly more precarious.

How on earth is pointing out that what you've just said doesn't logically follow from what preceded, and asking you for evidence to support it, an ad hominem?By failing to address the substantive issue of this thread, and clothing it, instead, in the dress of economics, you are pretending to to respect the actual argument, while in fact you are condescending to the extreme.

Do you really think this in any way justifies your assertion that "this entire issue is all about a large group of theists whose holy books hold that homosexuality is an abomination against God"? Let's examine this for a moment, and for that purpose let's assume for the sake of argument that the poll data is accurate and can be generalized.

Six in 10 Americans think homosexual relationships are against God's will; fine. Do all of them oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions)? After all, it's possible to think - as many religious people do - that something is sinful without being in favor of legislation against it.Possible, but highly improbable, unless you happen to want to avoid the argument for fear that you'll be shown to be trying to impose a religious belief as law.

For those who do oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions) on that basis, are religious grounds the sole grounds on which they oppose it? After all, it's possible to oppose something on more than one basis. As for those who do oppose homosexual marriage (or civil unions) solely on the basis of religion, does that mean that no one else can consider alternative grounds for a decision, and it is impossible to "concur in the result" but reach that result on a different basis?You can consider whatever alternative grounds you wish. But, so far, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to suggest that there is any substantial economic efficiency gained by banning gay marriage.

What about all the relevant jurisprudence that apparently has nothing to do with religion?We're not discussing other jurisprudence. We're discussing gay marriage.In fact, how much of the past few pages of this discussion has had anything to do with religion? Not much, as far as I can see.This entire thread, at the moment, is about religion masquerading as economics.

In my opinion, that is.

[bruto]

I guess my initial reaction to this is to ask why it should matter, in addressing a particular argument against a change in law, whether some (or even all) of the people opposing the change would still oppose it even if that particular argument went away.

The part of the national same-sex marriage debate I'm most familiar with is, of course, the part that unfolds within in the legal system. There, you rarely hear an argument based on moral objections to homosexuality, and virtually never one based on religious objections. The most common arguments there do have a strong, if sometimes subtle, efficiency component, in that they often boil down to a matter of the state arguing that it probably wouldn't get much "bang for its buck" in applying marriage laws to same-sex couples. It strikes me as immaterial whether the same people also harbor unspoken or unofficial religious objections to marriage. I don't even see a necessary benefit in inquiring more deeply into whether they do or not. To me, a "theoretical argument" is one that isn't actually in play, and a real argument is one that is in play. So perhaps you can understand why, from a legal policy standpoint, I view arguments based on abhorrence of homosexuality as the "theoretical" ones, whereas the ones you think of as theoretical are the ones I treat as real.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I think the efficiency argument and others like it are disingenuous, and I think it is entirely material whether the same people also harbor other objections to gay marriage, if such arguments never arise from any other quarter. I simply do not believe that there is any significant element in this debate which opposes gay marriage for the reasons you cite except as an adjunct to moral or religious objection. Call me cynical if you like, but I seriously doubt that those raising issues other than the moral or religious in this debate really care about the other arguments they're raising. Of course hypocrites can make good arguments too, but I think it's relevant to keep in mind what their real motivations are.

[ceo_esq]

Ad hominem.

That makes no sense, and you still haven't explained what you meant by the "ivory tower" remark.

At any rate, you've responded with a longish post that will take some time to address. I'll get through what I can for now.


If I were to ask you under oath, whether you had any personal religious objections to homosexual marriage, how would you answer?

None (not that it's relevant). I don't necessarily endorse any other objections, either; I've simply been trying to point out that they exist and are not imaginary or irrational.


The issue is how to refute an anti-gay essay re homosexual marriage -- not family law in general. The question is whether your economic efficiency argument is a red herring to disguise a religious-bias against homosexuals, i.e., that their behavior is an abomination against God, and therefore should not be impressed into law.

Even if that were true, the argument still has to be addressed on its own terms.


There's no such thing as a "better" law, because "better" requires a value judgment that is outside of the realm of jurisprudence.

That's preposterous. Value judgments pervade jurisprudence, and even if they didn't, so what?


However, my legal opinion, which is effectively expert on family law, because I've practice enough of it to know how it works in just about every reasonably conceivable circumstance, is that there is no situation where permitting homosexual marriage would have any substantive effect on economics one way or the other ...

Legal practitioners are not economists. Relatively few lawyers have any sophisticated understanding of the economics of laws - something that Oliver Wendell Holmes lamented - and only relatively recently has the interdisciplinary field of Law and Economics developed. Your opinion on questions of law carries authority, but the economic impact of laws is a question of fact as to which, unless you have separate expertise, you cannot speak with authority.


Possible, but highly improbable, unless you happen to want to avoid the argument for fear that you'll be shown to be trying to impose a religious belief as law.

What are you talking about? You really find it improbable that a religious person might sincerely be against making every sin a criminal offense?

[ceo_esq]

Sorry, but I don't buy it. I think the efficiency argument and others like it are disingenuous ...

I'm not sure I can agree here. To paraphrase a point Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School once made, there's nothing wrong with arguing against something because of X even when you think Y is sufficient reason to oppose it. In fact, it might be the only kind of argument appropriate to address to listener who can't or won't agree about Y but might see eye to eye with you about X. As long as you believe that X also happens to be true, that's an honest argument to make.


... and I think it is entirely material whether the same people also harbor other objections to gay marriage ...

Material to what? To refuting the argument? I can't see why. Possibly material in some other context.


... if such arguments never arise from any other quarter.

Any other quarter than what?


I simply do not believe that there is any significant element in this debate which opposes gay marriage for the reasons you cite except as an adjunct to moral or religious objection.

States seem to. Do you know if those economists I cited earlier view their work as an adjunct to religious objection? Neither do I, and if I did know, it would be of zero help in refuting any of their arguments - so I'm not inclined to obsess over the possibility.

You know, I seem to recall a 2003 Field poll from California indicating that fully a quarter of nonreligious people opposed same-sex marriage laws. Think they lied to the pollster about their religious beliefs, or just about their opposition to same-sex marriage?

[Lonewulf]

I'm not sure I can agree here. To paraphrase a point Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School once made, there's nothing wrong with arguing against something because of X even when you think Y is sufficient reason to oppose it. In fact, it might be the only kind of argument appropriate to address to listener who can't or won't agree about Y but might see eye to eye with you about X. As long as you believe that X also happens to be true, that's an honest argument to make.

Except that X wouldn't even be an argument without Y.

[bruto]

I'm not sure I can agree here. To paraphrase a point Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School once made, there's nothing wrong with arguing against something because of X even when you think Y is sufficient reason to oppose it. In fact, it might be the only kind of argument appropriate to address to listener who can't or won't agree about Y but might see eye to eye with you about X. As long as you believe that X also happens to be true, that's an honest argument to make. I don't think it's an honest argument if it is used to divert attention or conceal a more powerful motive.

Material to what? To refuting the argument? I can't see why. Possibly material in some other context. Not, perhaps, to refuting the argument, but to considering its importance and its relevance.

Any other quarter than what? As far as I can see, any other quarter than those who would oppose gay marriage without ever thinking twice about the economic issue. I see nobody anywhere who is without moral or religious qualms about homosexuality and the appropriateness of gay marriage arguing that it would be all right if only it were more economically efficient. This is an adjunct argument which has no life of its own, just as in situations where there is not a moral or religious issue, such as the marriage of infertile or elderly heterosexual couples, it counts for very little.

States seem to. Do you know if those economists I cited earlier view their work as an adjunct to religious objection? Neither do I, and if I did know, it would be of zero help in refuting any of their arguments - so I'm not inclined to obsess over the possibility.

You know, I seem to recall a 2003 Field poll from California indicating that fully a quarter of nonreligious people opposed same-sex marriage laws. Think they lied to the pollster about their religious beliefs, or just about their opposition to same-sex marriage? Note that in my posts above, I said moral and religious, and my opinion stands. If non-religious people oppose same-sex marriage laws, I do not believe it's because of considered worry about the efficiency of same-sex marriage. It's a moral issue about homosexuality, and there's a good chance that many of the people responding to those polls were misinformed and misled by the often viciously dishonest rhetoric that surrounds this issue.

[ceo_esq]

Not, perhaps, to refuting the argument, but to considering its importance and its relevance.

Yet refuting such arguments appears to be the task at hand. Are the importance or relevance of those arguments even in question? They're clearly relevant, because if correct (and whether they are or not has nothing to do with religion or morals), they detract from the merits of same-sex marriage. They're clearly important, because among other things they've already affected the course of judicial disputes. I would think that their relevance and importance would be acknowledged by anyone without a vested interest in denying it. Accepting that much doesn't undercut arguments about the positive benefits of same-sex marriage, after all.


As far as I can see, any other quarter than those who would oppose gay marriage without ever thinking twice about the economic issue. I see nobody anywhere who is without moral or religious qualms about homosexuality and the appropriateness of gay marriage arguing that it would be all right if only it were more economically efficient.

I often hear similar arguments in settings where I cannot know the subjective moral or religious convictions of the parties, and where it would even be improper to inquire. Do you have some special insight into the moral and religious attitudes of each person who writes an article, conducts a study, testifies before a legislature, presents an argument in court, responds to a poll, or casts a vote on this subject?


This is an adjunct argument which has no life of its own ...

Certainly these arguments do not formally or logically rely on other (moral or religious) arguments or premises, so I think we may fairly say that they have a life of their own in every meaningful sense in which an argument can be said to have a life of its own. And really, isn't it a basic principle of critical thinking that arguments (provided they are logically independent) do have a life of their own? That principle is essentially what makes ad hominem arguments fallacious, for example.


Note that in my posts above, I said moral and religious, and my opinion stands. If non-religious people oppose same-sex marriage laws, I do not believe it's because of considered worry about the efficiency of same-sex marriage.

OK. If you're right, I still don't see how it's relevant. But what compelling evidence do you have that you're right? In that same poll, 81% of nonreligious people said they thought homosexual activity between consenting adults was "Not at all wrong" - that is, they had no moral objections to homosexual conduct either. Yet only 68% of nonreligious people favored same-sex marriage. Assuming arguendo honest responses, do you know what was weighing on the minds of the other 13% who had neither moral nor religious objections to homosexual activity?


It's a moral issue about homosexuality, and there's a good chance that many of the people responding to those polls were misinformed and misled by the often viciously dishonest rhetoric that surrounds this issue.

There's false rhetoric on both sides of the issue that could conceivably have misled people in one direction or the other. But with due respect, aren't you striking kind of a paternalistic stance here?

I'm sensing that some people take it as pretty much axiomatic that this is purely a moral or religious question about homosexuality, and no matter how hard that axiom becomes to defend, it's something they can't be brought to reconsider. Accordingly, for them everything else in the debate gets refracted through the lens of the axiom, data gets reinterpreted to conform to it, and so forth. That's not a good thing. I've said before that based on what I've seen transpire in judicial and legislative settings (and elsewhere), the same-sex marriage movement would actually be better served by letting go of that axiom.

[Belz...]

Ad hominem.

You keep saying that.

With all due respect, I don't think you know what that term means.

[Belz...]

There's false rhetoric on both sides of the issue that could conceivably have misled people in one direction or the other.

Well, even if objection to gay marriage was based on "efficiency", or whatnot, I don't see how this is much of an issue. I don't really care about if the marriage is "efficient" or if the couple can produce children or not (and they're not more or less efficient without the marriage, anyway). Legally speaking, marriage should be about financial security, if nothing else. Consenting adults, and not much else.

[bruto]

Yet refuting such arguments appears to be the task at hand. Are the importance or relevance of those arguments even in question? They're clearly relevant, because if correct (and whether they are or not has nothing to do with religion or morals), they detract from the merits of same-sex marriage. They're clearly important, because among other things they've already affected the course of judicial disputes. I would think that their relevance and importance would be acknowledged by anyone without a vested interest in denying it. Accepting that much doesn't undercut arguments about the positive benefits of same-sex marriage, after all.




I often hear similar arguments in settings where I cannot know the subjective moral or religious convictions of the parties, and where it would even be improper to inquire. Do you have some special insight into the moral and religious attitudes of each person who writes an article, conducts a study, testifies before a legislature, presents an argument in court, responds to a poll, or casts a vote on this subject?




Certainly these arguments do not formally or logically rely on other (moral or religious) arguments or premises, so I think we may fairly say that they have a life of their own in every meaningful sense in which an argument can be said to have a life of its own. And really, isn't it a basic principle of critical thinking that arguments (provided they are logically independent) do have a life of their own? That principle is essentially what makes ad hominem arguments fallacious, for example.




OK. If you're right, I still don't see how it's relevant. But what compelling evidence do you have that you're right? In that same poll, 81% of nonreligious people said they thought homosexual activity between consenting adults was "Not at all wrong" - that is, they had no moral objections to homosexual conduct either. Yet only 68% of nonreligious people favored same-sex marriage. Assuming arguendo honest responses, do you know what was weighing on the minds of the other 13% who had neither moral nor religious objections to homosexual activity?




There's false rhetoric on both sides of the issue that could conceivably have misled people in one direction or the other. But with due respect, aren't you striking kind of a paternalistic stance here?

I'm sensing that some people take it as pretty much axiomatic that this is purely a moral or religious question about homosexuality, and no matter how hard that axiom becomes to defend, it's something they can't be brought to reconsider. Accordingly, for them everything else in the debate gets refracted through the lens of the axiom, data gets reinterpreted to conform to it, and so forth. That's not a good thing. I've said before that based on what I've seen transpire in judicial and legislative settings (and elsewhere), the same-sex marriage movement would actually be better served by letting go of that axiom.

I suspect we'll never see eye to eye on this, and I'm about ready to abandon the point, but would like to make a couple of comments.

First of all, I'm not sure how the same-sex marriage movement would be better served by additional arguments against same sex marriage, unless you envision a new and divergent set of unions, which I believe would always prove unacceptable, and would almost surely fail the test of equal protection (and probably of efficiency too, at least as far as administration is concerned) no matter how well-intentioned they were.

I would also say that I doubt very much if the people in the polls you cite were thinking about efficiency when they said they were all right with homosexuality but not with same sex marriage. There's a discrepancy there, whether it's religious, moral or even aesthetic. Culture doesn't change that quickly. Many people who are intellectually ready to accept homosexuality are still uncomfortable with it, and especially uncomfortable with the idea of having it as highly visible, normal and sanctioned as civil unions and same sex marriages imply. It takes conscious effort to examine one's own cultural baggage, and to vote out of your own comfort zone, and I think plenty of those opposing same sex marriage are working very hard to keep people from doing this, including providing convenient arguments by which a person can stay in opposition without appearing to be homophobic.

I suppose that the seriousness you attribute to the non-religious arguments comes down to how great you believe the social injustice of the result to be. I could think of various reductio ad absurdum parallels here, in which it would be possible to argue for some egregious injustice of a sort more obvious and universally deplored than issues of gay rights, using arguments that could be taken as logical and valid by themselves. I will not bother to invite you into the utilitarian snake pit, because I'm sure you could come up with examples just as good if you care to, either imagined or historical. The degree to which an argument such as efficiency can be taken seriously as a factor depends on the degree of justice or injustice you believe it supports. If you strongly disapprove of homosexual unions, then it's reasonable to throw in all the arguments you can, but it's a red herring. If you strongly believe that the denial of same sex marriage is an injustice, then it's just as reasonable to throw those arguments out no matter how rational they are by themselves.

Finally, if (a big if here, but...if...) you accept civil unions as they are conceived in places such as Vermont, which is to say that they are parallel to marriage in every way except the word "marriage," what efficiency argument can honestly be raised against adding that last word?

[blobru]

Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts:

Following this thread from the start, I sense a lot (a lot!) of cynicism about the capacity of [American] legislative and/or judicial bodies to rule on gay marriage challenges impartially, regardless of how well each side makes its case. It certainly is hard not to be somewhat cynical about the impartiality of legal rulings in high profile cases in the wake of the 2000 presidential debacle, where justices in both the Florida and US supreme courts, supposedly the most impartial arbiters of law in the land, lined up like baby ducks to get behind the party that hatched them. If these paragons of moral objectivity couldn't put politics aside then, why should we expect anyone in the courts or legislatures to do so now on the gay marriage issue?

If the 'cynics' are correct, if this is ultimately not a moral but a political battle, then a CNN poll aired Sunday with its coverage of gay pride celebrations should give us some optimism. 25 years ago, Americans were asked: "Are you comfortable with people choosing the gay lifestyle?" Less than 1 in 3 (32%) said "yes". Today, asked that same question, 4 in 7 (57%) say "yes". Assuming some correlation between 'comfort with gay lifestyle' and 'support for gay marriage', it would seem the tide of public and political opinion has shifted inevitably in favor of gay marriage.

Still one wonders, given a clear majority of Americans now condone gay relationships, why hasn't this translated into more legal success for the gay marriage cause? In this thread we'd gotten to a point where the economic efficiency objections to gay marriage were more or less stalemated I think. The issue's complicated to be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of that lack of legal success is due to a failure to properly address arguments such as those from "evolved economic efficiency" summarized herein. I don't know. As a layman, I only know the court of public opinion, where personal bias dominates; but as a citizen (neighbour), I hope that blind Justice isn't stone deaf to reason as well. That should be sad news for everyone, whichever side of the fence you're on.

[ceo_esq]

What grave harm is there in legalizing gay marriage? What end to civilization will occur? When will we turn into a Mad Max post apocalypse world filled with half naked raiders and a cunning and attractive male lead with an australian accent?

:D

I seriously doubt that either legalizing same-sex marriage or not legalizing it will place us on the road to Thunderdome. So we are left to choose - as is so often the case - between two courses which share the advantage of not precipitating an apocalypse. How grave the harm would be, if any at all, I'll leave chiefly to the social scientists and such. Major institutional changes nearly always involve costs, and of course, can often yield benefits as well. Is the net result of these various items here a cost or a benefit? That is the question I don't think anyone can answer with certainty; we just have to take our best-informed guess.


If the 'cynics' are correct, if this is ultimately not a moral but a political battle, then a CNN poll aired Sunday with its coverage of gay pride celebrations should give us some optimism. 25 years ago, Americans were asked: "Are you comfortable with people choosing the gay lifestyle?" Less than 1 in 3 (32%) said "yes". Today, asked that same question, 4 in 7 (57%) say "yes".

That would seem to be an encouraging result.


Assuming some correlation between 'comfort with gay lifestyle' and 'support for gay marriage', it would seem the tide of public and political opinion has shifted inevitably in favor of gay marriage.

Still one wonders, given a clear majority of Americans now condone gay relationships, why hasn't this translated into more legal success for the gay marriage cause? In this thread we'd gotten to a point where the economic efficiency objections to gay marriage were more or less stalemated I think. The issue's complicated to be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of that lack of legal success is due to a failure to properly address arguments such as those from "evolved economic efficiency" summarized herein.

First of all, I'm not sure how the same-sex marriage movement would be better served by additional arguments against same sex marriage ...

I quoted blobru's remark together with that comment from bruto because my responses are connected.

First of all, blobru, I think that the disconnect you noted between (1) the significant advances in people's willingness to regard homosexual relationships as neither repugnant nor morally wrong and (2) the less significant advances in their willingness to view same-sex marriage as a desirable policy, to some extent validates a point I've been trying to make in the face of heavy emotional resistance from some posters. To wit, among the reasons why the correlation between the two trends is not nearly as close as it could be is that negative moral and/or aesthetic attitudes toward homosexual relationships account for some but not all objections to same-sex civil marriage.

This brings me to respond to bruto's comment. Bruto, I wasn't suggesting that the same-sex marriage movement would be better served by additional arguments against same-sex marriage as such. I was suggesting that the same-sex marriage movement is better served by acknowledging the reality and significance of what I'll call "practical" (rational, independent of bigotry or religion, etc.) arguments against same-sex marriage, than by pretending that they are illusory or otherwise non-existent. Someone who is absolutely wedded (pun intended) to the preconceived notion that there's no such thing as a serious or practical opposing argument is not going to be in an optimal stance (psychologically speaking) to confront one effectively when he meets it. I completely agree with blobru's speculation that "some of that lack of legal success is due to a failure to properly address [practical] arguments", and I think that one contributing factor to that failure is the difficulty many gay marriage advocates have in recognizing/accepting that the other side's case isn't entirely frivolous.


Finally, if (a big if here, but...if...) you accept civil unions as they are conceived in places such as Vermont, which is to say that they are parallel to marriage in every way except the word "marriage," what efficiency argument can honestly be raised against adding that last word?

Only, perhaps, the argument that keeping the regimes formally separate (even if currently in name only) makes it less likely that the two feedback loops (in the institutional economics sense) will cross over and affect one another in the future.

[bruto]

I acknowledge Blobru's and CEO's opinions, and see merit in the argument, but still have a problem with it. I will try one last time to explain my problem, and then let it go. First of all, of course this is a very highly charged topic, a hot button issue that has the most vociferous spokesmen on all sides, arguing with passion and not always with honesty. Having seen the truly vicious and sleazy arguments put forth during the civil union debate by people who should have been above such hypocritical fear-mongering and just plain lying, perhaps I'm too cynical, but there it is.

Here, though, is my point about the "economic" argument, and its place in the debate. If CEO is correct, that this argument can stand alone, this means, I think, that there would, at least in theory, be people whose only stake in the debate is this argument. People who have no ax to grind with regard to sexual orientation at all, but merely wish to see marital law operate with the greatest efficiency. If this argument can stand alone, it can and should appear as the primary argument with regard to considering who should and should not be married. My problem, then, is first of all that I have not seen anyone using that argument except as an adjunct to a generalized opposition to gay marriage, and second of all that if one did, in fact, consider the economic argument as primary, and did so honestly, then it would not follow the lines of sexual orientation. Age and potential fertility, economic status and other issues, all create divisions that do not necessarily fall within the gay/straight divide. Lesbians, after all, are far more likely to have naturally born children than heterosexual couples over 50. Concerns of infertility/adoption/surrogate parenting and the like do not, if you think about them, align themselves according to orientation. Gay men and infertile or post-menopausal heterosexuals probably have more concerns in common than young and old heterosexuals. All of these issues are further complicated and mixed by the not-uncommon occurrence of persons previously married as heterosexuals coming out as gay after having had children. My point, then, is simply this: I believe that economy only works as an argument against gay marriage if the viewpoint already exists, and if it is bent to the purpose.

[zombiebex]

The real issue with modern marriage is that most women don't want men except for their sperm, resources and physical security, and that's the way it's been since the beginning of time. Modern divorce law simply recognizes reality -- and the statistics are the empirical proof of what we've always known.

Is it too late in the game for me to be offended by this, especially when I agree with everything else he said?

[Lonewulf]

Is it too late in the game for me to be offended by this, especially when I agree with everything else he said?

Nope, it's not.

"Women just want men for their sperm" is patently absurd on all levels.

[zombiebex]

Nope, it's not.

"Women just want men for their sperm" is patently absurd on all levels.

The flip side would be saying men only marry so they can have constant access to boobies.

[Lonewulf]

The flip side would be saying men only marry so they can have constant access to boobies.

Well, I would say that that may be closer to accurate, but still a bigoted thing to say.

The idea that women get sperm, give birth, and then divorce is ridiculous for other reasons, too. For one thing, single mothers tend to be those that suffer the most, economically.

[kjkent1]

Nope, it's not.

"Women just want men for their sperm" is patently absurd on all levels.It's a metaphor. Women seek security in order to optimize survival conditions for offspring. All other things being equal, a woman will attempt to attract the man who can provide the most resources.

In modern society, the benefits associated divorce create an incentive for a woman originally attracted to a man's resources, after child bearing has occurred, to divorce, because the court will award the woman substantial direct control over the man's resources, which during the marriage, cannot be obtained except by indirect means.

It's easy to say that women do worse after divorce, but the comparison is always done with the woman's social status while married, rather than comparing the woman's position prior to the marriage.

Empiracally, it's easy to demonstrate that the most successful women, achieve their success by marrying the man with the most resources. Just look at the Forbes top 10 richest Americans:

William H. Gates III (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Henry-Gates-III_BH69.html)
Warren E. Buffett (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Warren-Edward-Buffett_C0R3.html)
Sheldon Adelson (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Sheldon-Adelson_ER9O.html)
Lawrence J. Ellison (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Lawrence-Joseph-Ellison_JKEX.html)
Paul G. Allen (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Paul-Gardner-Allen_1217.html)
Jim C Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Jim-C-Walton_JI38.html)
Christy Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Christy-Walton-family_N9CY.html)
S. Robson Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_S-Robson-Walton_P47X.html)
Michael Dell (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Michael-Dell_WJOB.html)
Alice L. Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Alice-L-Walton_9S8R.html)Now, of those on the list who are women, all obtained their fortune via inheritence from a man, rather than via their own resource production. Furthermore, except for Paul Allen, all of the other men on the list are married to women. Thus, America's richest woman, via Washington State's community property law, is MS. WILLIAM GATES III.

And, so on and so forth.

I don't do political correctness (online, anyway). The vast majority of women marry to obtain resources to secure the best environment possible for procreation, and thanks to modern divorce law, there is a certain economic class of woman who can improve their personal security by divorcing.

It doesn't pay for Bill Gates' spouse to divorce. She has virtually unlimited use of existing financial resources, married or divorced, and divorce will only decrease the total net worth available to both parties.

But, for Jane Doe middle class soccer mom, who found a guy with potential whose's in a boring marriage where hubby doesn't pay enough attention, and who knows that her boobs and ass are starting to sag, Jane can guarantee a lifetime income stream from her now husband, by just hanging out long enough to maximize the court award and number of kids for which hubby will have to pay support.

And, that's exactly what happens, every day -- all day long. The line at the door to Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange County, CA, is 300 deep every morning at 8:00AM, dn there are 70 courtrooms with judges and commissioners (and attorneys) all, just waiting to serve up a heapin' helping of he-said/she-said, all to produce what is approximately 75% of the time a windfall for the woman. She gets the kids, the house, and enough money to pay the bills -- while the husband gets the bill, and not a hell of a lot else.

So, while I know this is all very insulting, it is also reality. Am I jaded? You bet. Same as a criminal law defense attorney would be from having to defend a majority of people who are guilty every day.

But it doesn't change the truth. And, the truth is simply, that most women can quite easily and comfortably get along without a man around the house -- and given the financial resources to accomplish that goal, most women will opt fot the out provide by modern family law -- and take a walk on the marriage.

Are there happy marriages? Sure -- usually for about 2-4 years. After that, bordem sets in, and many people just hang because it's easier than divorcing. But, give a girl a little nudge and she will bolt and run out of the gate (or toss the man out via a domestic relations restraining order).

So, believe what you wish -- lay out all the politically correct mantras. In the end, 50 years from now, nothing will have changed, and I'll still get my paycheck just like this:

Me to client on the witness stand: "Have irreconcilable differences caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage?"

Client: "Yes."
Judge: "Dissolution of marriage is granted. Mother is awarded physical custody of the children, father is awarded secondary custody, every other weekend, one week at Christmas, every other holiday and Birthday, and four weeks of summer vacation. Mother is awarded the family home until the children are all the age of majority, after which the home shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the party. All other assets and liabilities shall each be individually divided and awarded one half to each party. Husband's child support is set at $XXX per month (25-50% of husband's net disposable income), to be withheld by his employer via wage assignment, until a child reaches the age of 18 and graduated high school or 19, whichever occurs first. The court retains jurisdiction to modify child support, and to award spousal support as may be reasonably necessary to maintain the marital standard of living, until wife remarries or economic circumstances show that wife is capable of supporthing herself at the marital living standard. Attorney fees to be divided equally from the marital assets.

We'll take a 15 minute break and then the baliff will call the next case. Court is adjorned."

[ceo_esq]

If CEO is correct, that this argument can stand alone, this means, I think, that there would, at least in theory, be people whose only stake in the debate is this argument. People who have no ax to grind with regard to sexual orientation at all, but merely wish to see marital law operate with the greatest efficiency. If this argument can stand alone, it can and should appear as the primary argument with regard to considering who should and should not be married. My problem, then, is first of all that I have not seen anyone using that argument except as an adjunct to a generalized opposition to gay marriage ...

The economic argument in the form presented by Allen is pretty recent, but I see it as being in many respects just a sophisticated variation on certain of the major "state interest" arguments -which we went over much earlier in the thread - made all the time in litigation. Most of those arguments, to my mind, can be reduced to questions of efficiency and incentives; they boil down to the state getting "more bang for its buck" by targeting intersexual couples for marriage. And such arguments can and do appear as the primary ones in courts, legislatures and so forth. Now, I have no way of knowing whether the state AGs (for example) who make those arguments also have an unofficial aversion (moral, aesthetic, etc.) to the idea homosexual relations. But I do know that the primary arguments against same-sex marriage that have prospered in court, for example, are ones that are neutral towards homosexuality. Only practical arguments really get any traction there. So perhaps you should take heart on one level - the neutral, stand-alone arguments are actually standing alone rather successfully these days.


... and second of all that if one did, in fact, consider the economic argument as primary, and did so honestly, then it would not follow the lines of sexual orientation.

It doesn't follow the lines of sexual orientation as such. It follows the lines of biological sex. That choice of lines is very practical.

[Lonewulf]

It's a metaphor. Women seek security in order to optimize survival conditions for offspring. All other things being equal, a woman will attempt to attract the man who can provide the most resources.

In modern society, the benefits associated divorce create an incentive for a woman originally attracted to a man's resources, after child bearing has occurred, to divorce, because the court will award the woman substantial direct control over the man's resources, which during the marriage, cannot be obtained except by indirect means.

Intriguing. I guess you don't believe in affection or romance?

Empiracally, it's easy to demonstrate that the most successful women, achieve their success by marrying the man with the most resources. Just look at the Forbes top 10 richest Americans:

William H. Gates III (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Henry-Gates-III_BH69.html)
Warren E. Buffett (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Warren-Edward-Buffett_C0R3.html)
Sheldon Adelson (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Sheldon-Adelson_ER9O.html)
Lawrence J. Ellison (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Lawrence-Joseph-Ellison_JKEX.html)
Paul G. Allen (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Paul-Gardner-Allen_1217.html)
Jim C Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Jim-C-Walton_JI38.html)
Christy Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Christy-Walton-family_N9CY.html)
S. Robson Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_S-Robson-Walton_P47X.html)
Michael Dell (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Michael-Dell_WJOB.html)
Alice L. Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Alice-L-Walton_9S8R.html)Now, of those on the list who are women, all obtained their fortune via inheritence from a man, rather than via their own resource production. Furthermore, except for Paul Allen, all of the other men on the list are married to women. Thus, America's richest woman, via Washington State's community property law, is MS. WILLIAM GATES III.

And, so on and so forth.

Okay, want me to list the number of ways that your "sample" is a failure as far as proving any point is concerned?

For one, Hasty Generalization.

For two, very tiny sample size. You keep saying "empirically", so I'm assuming that you're attempting to be scientific about this. An analysis of ten people proves nothing amongst a population of 6 billion people, and furthermore is affected by the simple fact that many woman are willing to assume more traditional roles in marriage (not obtaining jobs themselves), or are societally encouraged not to. That's not quite the same today, except for the "glass ceiling", which I'm sure that you're aware of.

Women, quite frankly, are not as successful as men in the whole in society (whether because they get pregnant and stop working, because they don't work out of a personal decision, or because of societal pressures or corporate pressures from whatever else -- a myriad of reasons). They don't make up many CEOs. So thus, you're taking a small sample size to not only make a hasty generalization, but also without any sort of controls or consideration for side issues.

Also, thirdly, it still doesn't prove that women are money-grubbing child stealers. It proves that a wife gets to share in the wealth of her husband. Just like a poor woman with a poor man shares in his (lack of) wealth. This is, you know, a product of American society more than it is a woman's desire. The American tradition (which isn't pursued by everyone, but is still an influence) is that the man works, the woman takes care of the home and the child. Many woman still follow that tradition, whether without thinking about it, because they're more traditional, or because they're societally pressured to by greater society or immediate family.

Fourthly, and this is the major one, you are comparing not only ten people, but ten EXTREMES of people, in your generalization. That's not a very empirical study at all.

In short, your list was a waste of time, for both you (for posting me), and me (for reading it).

I don't do political correctness (online, anyway).

Naturally. You are quite open in your thinking that all women are money-grubbing baby-stealers.

The vast majority of women marry to obtain resources to secure the best environment possible for procreation, and thanks to modern divorce law, there is a certain economic class of woman who can improve their personal security by divorcing.

And see, the assumption here is... many things, actually.

First of all, you're assuming that the divorce was for finances. I assure that my parent's divorce, was not. Maybe if you had a father that was a drunkard and a wife-beater, you may understand.

Second of all, you're also assuming that all of these divorces, or a majority of divorces, were primarily done through the mother, and that the father had little to no say or was just a helpless victim or whatever else. This is a faulty generalization.

But, for Jane Doe middle class soccer mom, who found a guy with potential whose's in a boring marriage where hubby doesn't pay enough attention, and who knows that her boobs and ass are starting to sag, Jane can guarantee a lifetime income stream from her now husband, by just hanging out long enough to maximize the court award and number of kids for which hubby will have to pay support.

Were you brought up misogynistic, or do you just watch too much network TV?

And, that's exactly what happens, every day -- all day long. The line at the door to Lamoreaux Justice Center in Orange County, CA, is 300 deep every morning at 8:00AM, dn there are 70 courtrooms with judges and commissioners (and attorneys) all, just waiting to serve up a heapin' helping of he-said/she-said all to produce what is approximately 75% of the time a windfall for the woman. She gets the kids, the house, and enough money to pay the bills -- while the husband gets the bill, and not a hell of a lot else.

Which is not necessarily the fault of the woman or the man. It's the system itself, which tends to favor the mother thanks to it's own biasedness. It's pretty silly to assume that the courts are lenient towards the mother because the mother somehow wills it.

You say it's all he-said, she-said. Why are you assuming that it's always the "she" that's at fault?

I'm not saying that all women are perfect, but damned if you aren't generalizing about how cruel women are...

So, while I know this is all very insulting, it is also reality. Am I jaded? You bet.

It is very insulting. Am I skeptical? You bet.

But it doesn't change the truth.

No, but your perception of the truth seems to be incredibly askew.

And, the truth is simply, that most women can quite easily and comfortably get along without a man around the house -- and given the financial resources to accomplish that goal, most women will opt fot the out provide by modern family law -- and take a walk on the marriage.

Once again, always assuming that it's the women...

Are there happy marriages? Sure -- usually for about 2-4 years. After that, bordem sets in, and many people just hang because it's easier than divorcing.

What about how the statistics demonstrate that usually, the third marriage is the one that sticks, and that those that are older tend to have much longer marriages than those that are younger?

It may simply be that young love is, statistically, dumb love; that the wrong people fall each other.

But, give a girl a little nudge and she will bolt and run out of the gate (or toss the man out via a domestic relations restraining order).

Holy Mysogyny, Batman!

So, believe what you wish

Yes, I will believe in reality and the scientific process, as well as personal experiences.

-- lay out all the politically correct mantras.

I think this is a case of "poisoning the well", using the "you are politically correct, therefore you're wrong" type of speech. There is a fine line between saying, "Blacks are statistically higher to participate in a crime", and "Blacks are all criminals at heart; as soon as you turn around, they'll steal your stereo". You are not doing the former, you are doing the latter, and believe you me, you're bad at it. One is an empirical process, that belongs in science. The other is bigotry, that does not. You are not using "empirical evidence", you are using bigotry.

You then cite a court case where a woman gets a big share of money, which is, again, a decision of the court, based on the court's biasedness in dealing with the mother. The same way that many child services clinics tend to be biased towards the biological mother than the adoption mother. It doesn't demonstrate anything other than COURT biase, and COURT decisions. Which does nothing, at all, to prove that women are money-grubbing baby stealers.

[zombiebex]

Intriguing. I guess you don't believe in affection or romance?...

Thank you, Lonewulf, for putting this all far more articulately than I ever could have.

There's a number of reasons women are not very high on the list of the world's richest people, and it has less to do with gold digging and more to do with the glass ceiling and sexism that still persists today. Just 7% of Fortune 500 companies have female CFOs.

Let's look at the top ten richest women (http://www.richestwomen.info/) in this somewhat outdated list:

1. Alice L. Walton - daughter of the man who founded Wal-Mart. Didn't need to marry anyone.
2.Helen Robson Kemper Walton - Widow of Sam Walton. Married him in 1943, and was with him until he died.
3. Liliane Bettencourt - Inherited L'Oreal from her dad.
4. Abigail Johnson - runs Fidelity Investments together with her father Edward Johnson.
5. Barbara Cox Anthony - along with her sister:
6.Anne Cox Chambers - inherited Cox Communications from dad.
7. Jacqueline Mars - daughter of the founder of Mars candy.
8. Susanne Hanna Ursula Klatten - Richest woman in Germany. Inherited her father's shares in Altana and BMW.
9. Maria-Elisabeth Schaeffler - One of the owners of the Schaffler group. Can't find how she aquired the company.
10. Johanna Quandt - is a billionaire and is the widow the man who resurrected BMW from bankruptcy. No record of divorce in what I could find.

So! Of this list... zero women (from what I could see) who married men then took off with their money after a divorce. Mostly daughters of rich men.

The again, what a person is worth financially is often very different from the value of a person. Me? I hope to marry a man who will make me happy, who I love back, and I hope I never ever have to get a divorce.

Call me old fashioned...

[Lonewulf]

Thank you, Lonewulf, for putting this all far more articulately than I ever could have.

No problem. :)

There's a number of reasons women are not very high on the list of the world's richest people, and it has less to do with gold digging and more to do with the glass ceiling and sexism that still persists today. Just 7% of Fortune 500 companies have female CFOs.

Well, as I mentioned above, there are some other issues. (I mention this not to disagree, but to try to lay down my thoughts on this particular subject because I find it of interest). The glass ceiling, I feel, isn't necessarily entirely a product of men dominating the marketplace (though I'm not saying that that's what you're saying, but I feel that it's being implied), but also because of self-choice.

I mean, for instance, let's say that 50% of the population are women, 50% are men (Yes, not how it really is, but lit's a hypothetical). MOST of the 50% of men are expected to, and eventually do, hold down a job; and MOST of that 50% are expected to pursue a career. The only way to get to be a CEO or in a top business position is by, naturally, pursuing a career; it's hard to really "inherit" that job, since you need to understand the business place.

Now, women have many things working against them in pursuing hardball careers. For one, they have the "traditional" view of life, accepted by a certain amount of men *and* women in general, but also pregnancy; pregnancy is a big issue, and from my comprehension (though I don't proclaim myself to be an expert, I just paid attention in Sociology 101 :)), many businesses don't really want to have to deal with maternity leave. Unfortunately, the business can't really predict whether women are going to end up pregnant or not individually, so they have to guesstimate; however, pregnancy does not just affect the jobs, but also the decisions of women, I feel, though this is speculation; I haven't done any research or interviews on this subject, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However, it seems to me that a woman would be able to figure out that a pregnancy would complicate any future career; and thus women would be more willing to take easier jobs, that don't require as much of a full pursuit of a career, and work more part time than full time.

So, thus, going back to the 50%/50%. MOST of men are expected to try to pursue careers, or at the least hold down a series of jobs. However, only SOME (or VERY FEW even) of women are expected to, or expect to, do the same thing. So that can kind of fudge the 7% figure; it isn't necessarily entirely a figure of sexism (though that is an influence, don't get me wrong), but I feel that there is some more understandable reasons (an individual woman's choice, not to mention businesses having to guesstimate based on maternal leave -- which is a debatable subject that I'm not equipped to argue one way or the other).

(Sorry for this long ramble, but I kinda wanted to sort my thoughts on the issue, and this is also for the Mysogynist here to peruse as well).

Let's look at the top ten richest women (http://www.richestwomen.info/) in this somewhat outdated list:

1. Alice L. Walton - daughter of the man who founded Wal-Mart. Didn't need to marry anyone.
2.Helen Robson Kemper Walton - Widow of Sam Walton. Married him in 1943, and was with him until he died.
3. Liliane Bettencourt - Inherited L'Oreal from her dad.
4. Abigail Johnson - runs Fidelity Investments together with her father Edward Johnson.
5. Barbara Cox Anthony - along with her sister:
6.Anne Cox Chambers - inherited Cox Communications from dad.
7. Jacqueline Mars - daughter of the founder of Mars candy.
8. Susanne Hanna Ursula Klatten - Richest woman in Germany. Inherited her father's shares in Altana and BMW.
9. Maria-Elisabeth Schaeffler - One of the owners of the Schaffler group. Can't find how she aquired the company.
10. Johanna Quandt - is a billionaire and is the widow the man who resurrected BMW from bankruptcy. No record of divorce in what I could find.

So! Of this list... zero women (from what I could see) who married men then took off with their money after a divorce. Mostly daughters of rich men.

Very cogent point. :)

The again, what a person is worth financially is often very different from the value of a person. Me? I hope to marry a man who will make me happy, who I love back, and I hope I never ever have to get a divorce.

Call me old fashioned...

That's what I look for in a woman as well.

Money is nice, but it isn't everything. And boobies are great, but they aren't everything either. I find that the most plain of looks with the most winning of personalities can turn one into the most beautiful of people. ;)

[zombiebex]

Well, as I mentioned above, there are some other issues. (I mention this not to disagree, but to try to lay down my thoughts on this particular subject because I find it of interest). The glass ceiling, I feel, isn't necessarily entirely a product of men dominating the marketplace (though I'm not saying that that's what you're saying, but I feel that it's being implied), but also because of self-choice.

snip...

(Sorry for this long ramble, but I kinda wanted to sort my thoughts on the issue, and this is also for the Mysogynist here to peruse as well).



Quite all right. I didn't mean to imply that sexism was the only contributing factor. Add in that girls generally lose interest in math, technology, and science at a young age, the role that women are expected to fill, the earnings gap, so on so forth. Luckily, the number of female business owners is growing! The most common field for women business owners is the service industry.

Money is nice, but it isn't everything. And boobies are great, but they aren't everything either. I find that the most plain of looks with the most winning of personalities can turn one into the most beautiful of people. ;)

Hell, I've quit jobs that I've made good money at because I was miserable. No matter how rich a man is, if he's an abusive and/or misogynistic ass I'm not going to marry him. And I'm sure you can put a majority of women into that category. Are there gold diggers out there? Of course there are. And though I doubt there are statistics to back me up, I'd say those women are in the minority.

[NobbyNobbs]

Empiracally, it's easy to demonstrate that the most successful women, achieve their success by marrying the man with the most resources. Just look at the Forbes top 10 richest Americans:

William H. Gates III (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_William-Henry-Gates-III_BH69.html)
Warren E. Buffett (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Warren-Edward-Buffett_C0R3.html)
Sheldon Adelson (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Sheldon-Adelson_ER9O.html)
Lawrence J. Ellison (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Lawrence-Joseph-Ellison_JKEX.html)
Paul G. Allen (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Paul-Gardner-Allen_1217.html)
Jim C Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Jim-C-Walton_JI38.html)
Christy Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Christy-Walton-family_N9CY.html)
S. Robson Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_S-Robson-Walton_P47X.html)
Michael Dell (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Michael-Dell_WJOB.html)
Alice L. Walton (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/54/biz_06rich400_Alice-L-Walton_9S8R.html)

.....


But it doesn't change the truth. And, the truth is simply, that most women can quite easily and comfortably get along without a man around the house -- and given the financial resources to accomplish that goal, most women will opt fot the out provide by modern family law -- and take a walk on the marriage.

Are there happy marriages? Sure -- usually for about 2-4 years. After that, bordem sets in, and many people just hang because it's easier than divorcing. But, give a girl a little nudge and she will bolt and run out of the gate (or toss the man out via a domestic relations restraining order).


As long as you're using lousy statistics, allow me to use the same lousy ones to refute your point. I'll will pick my ten best friends and comment on their marriages.

1) J&L--married 13 years and quite happy. She is certainly financially able to go it alone quite comfortably, yet she stays with him. I can't imagine why.

2) E&R--married 12 years, with 2 kids. They love each other so much that we have trouble separating them for a "guys weekend" or a "girls night out".

3) D&C--married 7 years, with 2 kids. Again, she is financially well off on her own account, yet she's happy with him.

4) M&D--married 6 years, still madly in love. Each alone makes 6 figures a year.

5) M&C--married 9 years with 3 kids. They still act like lovebirds.


Ah, screw it. I don't need to go on. You used 10 examples to prove your point, I only needed 5 to prove mine.

Like my logic? It's yours....

[Lonewulf]

As long as you're using lousy statistics, allow me to use the same lousy ones to refute your point. I'll will pick my ten best friends and comment on their marriages.

1) J&L--married 13 years and quite happy. She is certainly financially able to go it alone quite comfortably, yet she stays with him. I can't imagine why.

2) E&R--married 12 years, with 2 kids. They love each other so much that we have trouble separating them for a "guys weekend" or a "girls night out".

3) D&C--married 7 years, with 2 kids. Again, she is financially well off on her own account, yet she's happy with him.

4) M&D--married 6 years, still madly in love. Each alone makes 6 figures a year.

5) M&C--married 9 years with 3 kids. They still act like lovebirds.


Ah, screw it. I don't need to go on. You used 10 examples to prove your point, I only needed 5 to prove mine.

Like my logic? It's yours....

Pwned.

Quite all right. I didn't mean to imply that sexism was the only contributing factor. Add in that girls generally lose interest in math, technology, and science at a young age, the role that women are expected to fill, the earnings gap, so on so forth. Luckily, the number of female business owners is growing! The most common field for women business owners is the service industry.

Indeed! Heck, we're having a woman running for presidential nomination! Though I'm not sure that I would want to see her succeed, as some of Hillary's policies have been somewhat iffy to me. ;)

Hell, I've quit jobs that I've made good money at because I was miserable. No matter how rich a man is, if he's an abusive and/or misogynistic ass I'm not going to marry him. And I'm sure you can put a majority of women into that category. Are there gold diggers out there? Of course there are. And though I doubt there are statistics to back me up, I'd say those women are in the minority.

I agree there.

[Belz...]

It's a metaphor

Obviously, it's not. Sounds more like your opinion, to me.