Tuesday, January 19, 2010

In Addition to Basic Fairness

Same-sex marriage appears to prevent divorce! Click here for a simple statistical rundown on divorce rates per state as compared to the state's same-sex marriage policy.  A short quote from the article:
As is somewhat visually apparent, those states which have tended to take more liberal policies toward gay marriage have tended also to have larger declines in their divorce rates.

Of all the weak-ass arguments against same-sex marriage, preserving the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage has always been the worst fucking one (how people I don't know getting married is supposed to affect my own marriage is a mystery that continues to confound). And yay! Now there appears to be data that show just how stupid that argument is! It's important to note though, that, in the end, it really doesn't matter: whatever data are uncovered and however they are presented current laws are unfair and that's the real problem.

(hat tip: Mr M)


  1. I agree, that is one weak-ass argument.

  2. The author of the post mentions (correctly) that there isn't necessarily a causal relationship between allowing gay marriage and decline in divorce rates. But in a way, that's the point. If there's no relationship between the two, then the argument that gay marriage harms opposite-sex marriages must be false. It's science!

  3. By the way, I strongly suspect that this type of study is the reason a lot of people don't like science/statistics. If someone says "I don't support gay marriage because it leads to the decay of opposite-sex marriage" and I say "I disagree...in my opinion it doesn't matter", then they can argue with me. It's just one opinion against another. But if you reply "Actually, data shows that there's no correlation, or maybe even a positive relationship between the two", then it's a lot harder to argue.

    People don't want science/statistics to tell them something that disagrees with their prior assumptions. While I don't agree with that thinking, I do try to remember that there are people who feel that way...

  4. You're certainly correct, Jeff, and I was wondering if I should specifically insert "correlation" somewhere into my post but then I thought, the main point is it doesn't matter, so statistically significant or not the article makes its own point.

    I think people who have the attitude you describe re science/stats are more suspicious than anything. They readily embrace the science/stats if it suits their assumptions but reserve the right to be suspicious of anything that does not. I suppose that's why socialization remains more powerful than experimentation even in these "modern" times. It's very hard to let go of preconceived ideas. That I can certainly understand but willfully blinding oneself is something that will always try my patience. I think a healthy sense of doubt is a good thing so as to prevent one from being gullible but to disregard fact in favor of prejudice or opinion is not productive.