|
 |
 |
 Sunday, June 04, 2006
SMOKING GUN or MISFIRED ARGUMENT?/Eskeridge and Spedale Respond to Kurtz
[Their new book, Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? What We’ve Learned from the Evidence, Oxford 2006, is here. Maggie] "Stanley Kurtz is the 'EverReady Bunny' of the same-sex marriage debate, a character who moves forward unrelentingly on a quest to prove that same-sex marriages are harmful. He is sure that state recognition of lesbian and gay unions in Europe has harmed the institution of marriage. But he never quite settles on a reason why this should be so, and his most recent argument illustrates the wildly unscientific thinking behind a lot of the American opposition to same-sex marriage. For several years, Kurtz argued that same-sex marriage (in the form of registered partnerships) in Denmark and other Nordic nations had meant the “end of marriage” in Scandinavia. This was an overstated claim, at the least. As we document in our new book, the marriage rate actually increased and the divorce rate declined after Denmark adopted its same-sex registered partnership law in 1989. This 'end of marriage' argument was accompanied by a similar argument, that same-sex partnership legislation has inspired straight couples to bear and raise their children outside of marriage. This, too, is not factually correct. Our book demonstrates that the percentage of Danish children born outside of marriage went up from 11% in 1970 to 33% in 1980 to 46% in 1989 – and then, after the passage of the partnership law in Denmark, actually declined slightly. Between 1997 and 2004, the rate hovered between 44.6% and 45.4%. As our book also documents, the out-of-wedlock birth rates in Norway and Sweden, which had been steadily increasing at a fast clip in the ‘70s and ‘80s, stabilized after those countries recognized same-sex registered partnerships in 1993 and 1995, respectively. Finally, as we document in our book, the long history in Scandinavia with registered partnerships has seen some benefits accrue to the institution. Not only have long-standing trends in lower marriage rates / greater divorce rates / greater numbers of out-of wedlock births reversed themselves or stabilized, but same-sex unions have also proven themselves to keep relationships stronger, strengthen families, protect children, promote tolerance, and possibly lead to benefits on a national scale such as lower national rates of STD and HIV infections. Sensing that he is losing the case with those countries with these longer-lived partnership laws, Kurtz has substantially shifted to the Netherlands, as illustrated by his recent article ;The Smoking Gun,; (National Review On-Line, posted June 2, 2006). The Dutch had one of the lowest rates of nonmarital births in the world in 1970; between 1970 and 1982, the rate doubled, but only to 5%; between 1982 and 1988, the rate doubled again, to 10%; between 1988 and 1997, the rate doubled yet again to more than 20%. This was before the Dutch made any changes in their marriage laws. Since 1997, the nonmarital birth rate has continued to rise at a steady clip, about 2% points per year, since 1997. In 2001, the Netherlands celebrated its first same-sex marriages. Kurtz argues that he finally has data that support his claim that same-sex marriage 'causes' high rates of children born outside of marriage. For several reasons, this data reveal no causal link. First, the Netherlands' institution of same-sex marriage is too recent to draw any conclusions at this point. Kurtz responds that the Netherlands recognized registered partnerships in 1997 (they became available in 1998). Unlike the Scandinavian laws, however, the Dutch partnership law was, and remains, available to different-sex as well as same-sex couples. In fact, more heterosexuals take advantage of registered partnerships in the Netherlands than same-sex couples. Hence, the symbolic message it was sending was different: not just recognition of lesbian and gay unions, but also providing straight couples an alternative to marriage. Providing them another option might be expected to draw straight couples away from marriage. Kurtz also claims that the 'campaign' for same-sex marriage began in a big way much earlier, perhaps 1989-90. The mere possibility of same-sex marriage, he seems to be saying, 'causes' straight couples to abandon the institution and have children outside marriage. This is a lavish understanding of social causation. From our ethnographic study in Scandinavia, as well as our survey evidence, we doubt that even formal changes in the law have predictable effects on social practice. In any event, Kurtz introduces no evidence demonstrating that more than a handful of Dutch citizens were even aware of this 'campaign,' and in fact most Dutch homosexuals did not know about it. Second, an event does not 'cause' a trend if the trend pre-existed the event. If your income rises at a steady rate of 5% a year, you get married, and then your income continues to rise at a rate of 5% per year, you cannot conclude that your marriage “caused” those subsequent wage increases. Your marriage presumably did not hurt, but there is every reason to believe that it didn’t help either. The nonmarital birth rate in the Netherlands has been increasing exponentially since the 1970s. It galloped up in the 1980s, and continued that gallop in the 1990s and the new millennium. The rate doubled between 1982 and 1988, doubled again between 1988 and 1997, and is on the way to another doubling. These are significant increases, but registered partnerships, not to mention same-sex marriage, came right in the middle of this demographic trend. Neither institution seems to have exacerbated the trend. Indeed, the data support a more interesting hypothesis than the one Kurtz supposes. For social reasons, the Dutch were by the 1980s no longer so strongly committed to a norm that a marriage certificate is a necessity for couples to form permanent, committed partnerships and raise children. The compulsory-marriage norm continued to weaken in the 1990s – and that is the key reason Parliament was willing to open registered partnership to different-sex couples. Third, and perhaps most important, Kurtz makes the mistake David Hume calls the 'post hoc proper hoc' (after that, therefore because of that) fallacy. (1) The U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state laws barring different-race marriage in 1967, and (2) American divorce and cohabitation rates went up dramatically after that. This sequence does not mean, however, that (3) the first event caused the second trend. To figure out why Dutch nonmarital childbirth rates have gone up so dramatically in the last generation, we need to look at other variables – including changing attitudes about women working outside the home, the trends in neighboring countries as Europe became more integrated, and evolving social mores. To “blame” this trend on same-sex marriage, which came at its tail end, is like blaming the last batter in a 10-0 baseball game for 'causing' the home team to lose. The last batter did not prevent his team from losing, but neither did he cause the loss. The 'you lost the game' phenomenon we have just described is called scapegoating. Interestingly, the Dutch don't 'blame' gay marriage for the phenomenon of families outside of marriage in their country. Most Dutch citizens who know about Kurtz’s argument find it baffling, though not a few are amused. But scapegoating is a serious matter. To blame the group (gays and lesbians) that has been most fundamentally denied even minimal rights in the last generation for the decline of marriage is not only unscientific, it is fundamentally unjust. posted by maggie at 7:47 PM | link 
|
||||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics.
If the humanistic sciences can produce such widely varying outcomes and conclusions, as between Eskridge and Spedale and Kurtz, then how far are these sciences actually scientific?
Most Dutch citizens who know about Kurtz’s argument find it baffling, though not a few are amused.
Of course they find it baffling. They still can't figure out why the increase in extramarital childbirths is happening either though, so it makes sense in their minds to reject what they don't want to hear.
It's the ENERGIZER bunny.
Im afraid Eskeridge and Spedale have not responded to Kurtz. Rather they have responded to a argument that Kurtz manifestly dismisses. Every article he writes on the subject presents qualifiers as to the myriad of factors present in European marital decline. He has said this over and over. His work does point out how gay “marriage” reinforces and locks in place these other factors, and becomes a watershed of marital decline.
Cry’s of “scapegoat” are a cheap emotional ploy designed to reinforce the views of the already converted. The fact of the matter is that Kurtz has proven to many peoples satisfaction what any rational person would suspect intuitively. Gay “marriage” is corrosive to the all important institution of marriage.
As to the “Most Dutch citizens who know about Kurtz’s argument find it baffling, though not a few are amused.” It’s a handy and impossible to prove trope of no immediate analytical value. The authors hope to end on this note, casting Kurtz well founded research in the light of folly. I’m afraid Kurtz critiques have yet to confront the well founded arguments that strike so many as common sense. Obfuscation & obviation rather, seem the order of the day. If we are to throw around the term “prove” in a social scientific context, it begs the question “to who’s satisfaction?”.
It's Energizer Bunny, not EverReady Bunny. Let's get the basic stuff straight; skewering Stan Kurtz is too easy by iteself.
Okay, there's loads in that mocking response to Kurtz that misses the argument Kurtz has made.
In any case, the conclusion reflects Eskeridge's confusion:
>> "To blame the group (gays and lesbians) that has been most fundamentally denied even minimal rights in the last generation for the decline of marriage is not only unscientific, it is fundamentally unjust."
Kurtz did not blame the "group". He did not blame the particular individuals who may have registered their twosomes -- SSM or not.
He pointed to SSM argumentation and he also reiterated the areas of contention to which Eskeridge has yet to respond on substance.
Eskridge's response is not baffling but it is unamusingly evasive.
Actually, it is obviously pointed out in this article that efforts to justify bans on gay marriage based on numbers simply don't add up. The problem with attempting to debate any issue with such large religious implications with the scientific method is that there will always be a side that is a hypothesis in search of substantiation (the exact opposite of the scientific method). Eskeridge and Spedale attempt not to prove that gay marriage is GOOD, but that Kurtz's method for proving gay marriage BAD is not scientific at all.
smmtheory, based on THAT argument, you might as well claim it was due to a) allowing women to vote b) the invasion of invisible Martians, c) fluoride in the water.
Kurtz has made a series of dumb assumptions that don't hold up under statistical evidence. There's a reason to throw his theories out.
"There's a reason to throw his theories out.
Maybe, but Eskeridge has not described even one good reason to do so.
Perhaps you imagine Eskeridge has given a reason? Please cite it.
But maybe you can first restate, accurately, the Kurtz theory you say should be thrown out. This, by way of demonstrating you have detected the theory.
Anonymous,
That wasn't an argument, it was an observation. An observation that Eskridge and Spedale sit there clueless and scratching their heads wondering why Kurtz is pointing out how extramarital births are skyrocketing as evidence that marriage-lite solutions (including SSM) don't work. So Eskridge and Spedale come out with a book saying (paraphrased here) "we don't know what we're looking at, but we know definitely that Kurtz's hypothesis ain't right." And the thing is, they also unwittingly propose that Kurtz is right about marriage-lite solutions being the underlying cause for the high rate of extramarital births plus they want more of the same.
{sarcasm}
Man Overboard!!!!
Hey, it looks like he's drowning.
Quick, let's throw him an anchor!
That works, right?
{/sarcasm}
I live in Europe. There are many reasons why the statistics of marriage are shifting. Gay marriage isn't one of them.
Kurtz sees that births to unwed couples have risen at an increasing rate and "blames" this on SSM.
What Kurtz fails to admit is that the figures for out of wedlock births are represented by the beginning of the S shaped Sigmoid or logistic curve, exactly as one who has studied statistics would expect given the gradual rise in couples who choose not to marry over the last 30 years.
The increase in the rate that Kurtz makes so much of is an artifact. Even if the increase in the number of couples who choose not to marry had been steady over the last thirty years, as each new year adds more couples, they join those from the previous year, and the year before that and so on, so the pool of couples and therefore the number of babies born to unwed couples grows at a geometric rate, as shown by the early part of the Sigmoid curve. So the latest increase in rate has no relation to SSM what-so-ever.
When the percent goes over 50% there is an ever decreasing portion of additional couples who might be added to the list, so the slope gradually decreases as shown at the top right portion of the curve.
Here’s a chart (scroll down some) of the Netherlands' birth data. See how the end of the line for one child (kind) is starting to bend over to form the top of the S.
The two+ child line is a prime example of the first third of the curve.
If Kurtz wasn't aware of this predictable statistical effect, he has surely had it pointed out to him by now. It’s beginning to look like Kurtz is becoming to gay marriage what Paul Cameron is to gays in general, someone who grossly misrepresents data for political ends.
the figures for out of wedlock births are represented by the beginning of the S shaped Sigmoid or logistic curve,
This point is also known as the "tipping point" I believe. Certainly nothing to be proud of Bill...
Unless you actually APPROVE of children being born into unstable homes... (as it appears Eskeridge and Spedale actually do)
Nonsense.
European demographers noted the significance of the acceleration and Kurtz has simply followed that observation. Eskeridge acknowledges it.
Accumulation? The trend had been for unwed couples to marry upon the arrival of their first child.
If your claim is that the trend merely tracks the replacement of married parenting with unwed parenting, that's fine. But how could that be contrary to Kurtz's article?
Prior to this acceleration, the Netherlands had resisted the general European trend toward steadily increased unwed childbearing. This was noted by European demographers -- The Netherlands were an exception.
Their resistence was undone when the public meaning of marriage changed on the same timeline that the SSM campaign succesfully changed the public meaning of marriage.
Look, the statistics are simple: Since the Scandinavian countries passed their gay marriage laws, (1) marriage rates have gone up in Norway, Denmark and Sweden; (2) divorce rates have gone down in Norway, Denmark and Sweden; and (3) out of wedlock birthrates, which skyrocketed in the 70s and 80s, either stabilized to a much slower incline (as in Norway and Sweden) or actually declined (as in Denmark). Read the statistics yourself, they're either on the Scandinavian countries' statistical websites or as appendices to the authors' book. The authors didn't spend time researching in the Netherlands, but they point out how out-of wedlock births skyrocketed LONG before marriage laws changed.
Statistics notwithstanding, it might have helped if Kurtz had actually spent some time on the ground in the Scandinavian countries doing his research, rather than only drawing his conclusions from a few sets of online statistics. Spedale was in those countries for two years doing this research, and from what I've seen, the book has some very interesting results from the research. I suggest that people read the book for themselves and THEN draw their own conclusions on the effects of gay marriage on society.
Interesting how this debate against Kurtz goes. Perhaps he brought it on himself, but:
Either gay marriage caused the decline in the importance of marriage, or, it is the result of the decline in the importance of marriage.
In either case, it is NOT a good sign...
anonymous, you have not understood the substance of what Kurtz has actually written about Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Look it up, do your homework, and if you can restate what Kurtz has actually said, then, you might be able to address what he has actually said.
Until then, your previous comment stands as yet another example of confusion about (and misrepresentation of) the demographics and the analysis (of Kurtz and others he has cited) in the various articles written by Kurtz this subject.
You also switched from the Netherlands to other countries, as Kurtz noted Eskeridge had done.
You also seem to think that the date a piece of legislation is passed is the date that a trend might have gotten underway.
The public meaning of marriage changed in the Netherlands. Look at the timeline of the campaign to accomplish that change. Look at the trend line on unwed childbearing, again, in light of that.
If, after re-reading Kurtz you still need help understanding the timeline, ask for help to understand the timeline.
* * *
Marty, sure, it can be both, or one and not the other, but it cannot be neither.
Sweden, Denmark and Norway have advanced to the stage where they have reached the second half of the S curve where the rate of increase first slowed and is now nearly steady. This occurred after the relatively recent institution of same sex marriage like arrangements. Using Kurtz's false hypothesis that SSM effects straight marriage, one could use these results to claim that SSM has a positive effect on marriage as a whole. One ought not do this, however, or we would be incorrectly assuming a cause and effect relationship to what is primarily the expected progression in this natural phenomenon.
To support his preexisting bias, Kurtz leaves these three countries which would be examples of the exact opposite and cherry picks data from the Netherlands where its uncharacteristically low initial out of wedlock birth rate produces results which are still within the early portion of the S curve where the rate is still raising. He then promotes the false claim that this rise has something to do with marriage equality for gays despite the fact that the other three courties would support the opposite conclusion.
Taking a naturally occurring population function and using it to "blame" gays by selecting out one portion of the curve for one country while ignoring the rest is unseemly.
Bill Ware repeats (and repeats) his S-curve theory yet again... speaking of "selecting one portion of the curve" while ignoring the rest...
What if the curve tips upward yet again Bill? Will you admit you were wrong and apologize to Mr. Kurtz?
Chairm, have you actually READ the Spedale / Eskridge book? I have done so, and its clear from a broader study that Mr. Kurtz has distorted the authors' findings to serve his agenda.
I therefore strongly suggest that you do not rely on Mr. Kurtz’s interpretation of this book to draw your own conclusions on the author's research. Once you have read the book and seen the book's conclusions as the authors present them and not as Mr. Kurtz presents them, I think you will find the book thoughtful, reasonable, and fairly presented, and at the end of the day are a far more compelling interpretation of the data than Kurtz offers up in his more limited study. You can find the book on their website: www.gaymarriagebook.com
Anonymous, you have not responded to what was asked.
If you can restate what Kurtz has actually said, then, you might be able to address what he has actually said.
Eskeridge has not done nso so, in published writings. So if you rely on Eskeridge's book or articles, alone, without directly accessing Kurtz's words, then, you may place yourself at a disadvantage in responding the what has been asked of you here.
Read what he as actually said. Summarize it to show you know what he has said. That's important in identifying the disagreement.
As you recommend the same approach with what Eskeridge has actually said, I would imagine you'd find this a reasonable thing to ask of you.
First of all, his name is "Eskridge" if you had actually done any research on your own rather that simply reading blogs. Second, you're criticizing their research without even knowing what it says. Really, READ THE BOOK, you'll know more and actually be in a position to debate this with me here online. I've read Kurtz's articles on NRO, but if you're only working with knowledge of one side of the debate, it would be meaningless to continue this debate with you. Let me know when you've read the authors' book.
Interestingly, Kurtz, who lives in DC, was asked to debate Eskridge and Spedale at the CATO event, but he turned down the invitation and refused to debate the authors. Apparently, he didn't want to actually have to address their arguments in a public forum.
You read far too much into a typo.
Meanwhile you claim to have read Kurtz's writing on the subject but have not concisely restated Kurtz's hypothesis, which you faithfully declare you think is wrong.
Maybe you could borrow a page from "Eskridge's" book and quote his restatement of Kurtz's hypothesis. And then, with your background reading of the words written by Kurtz, you can show whether or not "Eskridge" got it right.
I don't think "Eskridge" has fully responded to the hypothesis that Kurtz has provided. Instead, he changed the subject, as you have tried to do here.
I find it interesting that the Kurtz supporter never responded to these figures:
"Look, the statistics are simple: Since the Scandinavian countries passed their gay marriage laws, (1) marriage rates have gone up in Norway, Denmark and Sweden; (2) divorce rates have gone down in Norway, Denmark and Sweden; and (3) out of wedlock birthrates, which skyrocketed in the 70s and 80s, either stabilized to a much slower incline (as in Norway and Sweden) or actually declined (as in Denmark). Read the statistics yourself, they're either on the Scandinavian countries' statistical websites or as appendices to the authors' book. The authors didn't spend time researching in the Netherlands, but they point out how out-of wedlock births skyrocketed LONG before marriage laws changed."
In the Scandinavian countries unwed cohabitation is treated like marriage, but cohabitation is not captured in the marriage rate. Likewise, the dissolution of cohabitation is not included in the divorce rate.
The slight upticks in the marriage rates are accounted for by at least two factors: 1) remarraige among the much larger pool of divorced people and 2) catching-up by older people. The marriage rate per younger population is still very low and declining, while the rate for unwed cohabitation climbs accompanied by the much higher likelihood of dissolution.
That combines with the important trend in nonmarital births.
No stablization of the nonmarital birthrate has transpired in Holland. The trendline has stop climbing as fast in Denmark because the ratio has reached a height at which this is predictable. It is not going down but continues to rise. As for Sweden and Norway, the rate of increase has slowed only because the ratio of nonmarital births is so very high. If you understood statistical trends, you would recognize that once a trend reaches the "cieling" it tends not to have much more room to grow and the curve appears to slow.
Are you really suggesting, as Eskridge seems to, that the unwed cohabitation trend is not a sign of the decline of marriage in these countries?
The authors didn't spend time researching in the Netherlands, but they point out how out-of wedlock births skyrocketed LONG before marriage laws changed.
That's utter nonsense. You would not agree with Eskridge if you understood the timeline -- you did not ask for help so I guess you depend on Eskerdige.
And if you depend on Eskridge, then, you will be led by the nose to the sort of errors that Kurtz has already pointed out.
Eskeridge did not address the argument that Kurtz has made regarding Holland. He changed the subject to strawmen and to softselling the significance of the statistical trends.
But Eskeridge did concede that the timeframe is almost two decades, which concedes a major point that Kurtz has made about Holland in particular.
In effect, they are urging you to fall asleep and be satisfied that changing the shared public meaning of marriage will have absolutely no infuence on behavior that can be attributed to changin gthe shared public meaning of marriage.
Post a Comment
<< Home