Opposition to homosexuality has long been marked by bad science. In the past, that usually meant bad psychology or even bad physiology. Today, the more common problem is bad social science, usually involving cherry-picked data about alarming social trends followed by breathtaking leaps of logic connecting these trends to same-sex marriage.
David Blankenhorn positions himself as an exception. In his new book The Future of Marriage, and in a recent Weekly Standard article entitled "Defining Marriage Down…Is No Way to Save It," Blankenhorn makes the familiar argument that supporting same-sex marriage weakens marriage as a valuable social institution. But he claims to do so in way that avoids some of the simplistic analyses common in the debate, including those made by his conservative allies.
In particular, Blankenhorn criticizes Stanley Kurtz's argument that same-sex marriage in the Netherlands and Scandinavia has caused the erosion of traditional marriage there. Blankenhorn rightly recognizes Kurtz's causal claims to be unsupported: "Neither Kurtz nor anyone else can scientifically prove that allowing gay marriage causes the institution of marriage to get weaker," Blankenhorn writes. "Correlation does not imply causation." This is a refreshing concession.
But having made that concession, Blankenhorn proceeds as if it makes no difference: "Scholars and commentators have expended much effort trying in vain to wring proof of causation from the data, all the while ignoring the meaning of some simple correlations that the numbers do indubitably show." But what can these correlations mean, if not that same-sex marriage is causally responsible for the alleged problems? What do the numbers "indubitably show"? Blankenhorn's answer provides a textbook example of a circular argument:
Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each other and with certain trends in behavior…The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal relationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.
In other words, what the correlations show is that these things are correlated. Not very helpful.
From there, Blankenhorn argues that if things "go together," opposition to one is good reason for opposition to all. He attempts to illustrate by analogy:
"Find some teenagers who smoke, and you can confidently predict that they are more likely to drink than their nonsmoking peers. Why? Because teen smoking and drinking tend to hang together." So if you oppose teenage drinking, you ought to oppose teenage smoking, because of the correlation between the two. In a similar way, if you oppose nonmarital cohabitation, single-parent parenting, or other "marriage-weakening behaviors," you ought to oppose same-sex marriage, since they, too, "tend to hang together."
This is breathtakingly bad logic. The analogy sounds initially plausible because teen drinking and teen smoking are both bad things. But the things that correlate with bad things are not necessarily bad. Find some teenagers who have tried cocaine, and you can confidently predict that they are more likely to have gone to top-notch public schools than their non-cocaine-using peers. It's not because superior education causes cocaine use. It's because cocaine is an expensive drug, and expensive drugs tend to show up in affluent communities, which tend to have better public schools than their poor counterparts. Yet it would be ridiculous to conclude that, if you oppose teen cocaine use, you ought to oppose top-notch public education.
The whole point of noting that "correlation does not equal cause" is to acknowledge that things that "tend to hang together" are not necessarily mutually reinforcing. They are sometimes both the result of third-party causes, and even more often the result of a complex web of causes that we haven't quite figured out yet. In any case, when babies correlate with dirty bathwater, we don't take that as a reason for throwing out babies.
Which brings me to another significant flaw in Blankenhorn's analysis. Even if we grant that support for same-sex marriage correlates with negative factors such as higher divorce rates, it also seems to correlate with positive factors such as higher education, greater support for religious freedom, and greater respect for women's rights. On Blankenhorn's logic, we ought to oppose those things as well, since they "tend to hang together" with the negative trends.
I don't often find myself agreeing with Stanley Kurtz. But at least he seems to understand that, without the causal connections, the "negative marriage trends" argument gets no traction.
8 Comments for “David Blankenhorn’s Lazy Logic”
posted by Craig2 on
I’m not surprised by your assessment of Blankenhorn. After all, I believe he is an art historian, rather than someone who is a qualified social scientist.
Craig2
Wellington,
New Zealand
posted by Fitz on
The two arguments work together, with Kurtz presenting the statistical claim of present demographics and Blankenhorn presenting the cluster of beliefs that are both cause and effect of a disintegrating marriage culture. Kurtz thesis regarding marital statistics in the Scandinavian countries relies on his own formulation about this cluster of beliefs that Blankenhorn flushes out more thoroughly and within a wider spectrum of cross cultural data.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/04/dale-carpenter-answers-thesis-never.html
posted by C. Rose on
Lazy logic is often result when you work backwards from conclusion to evidence. Does anyone seriously doubt that this is the approach of both Blankenhorn and Kurtz?
posted by Randy on
I would much more respect a person who says they oppose SSM simply because of their religious beliefs, or just because they don’t like it.
But all this baloney to find reasons to deny SSM to gays is that: baloney cooked up to make bigotry look respectable, scientific, and somehow caring about marriage.
posted by Roger on
It’s the old idea that some have of thinking correlation means causation. While it’s almost impossible to have causation without correlation, it is also true that correlation does not equal causation. That’s one of the first things I learned in science. Correlation is one of the things you look for, but then you’ve got to ask more questions about how the correlation relates and what happens to make the two different effects be in correlation and only after a study of multiple factors can you possibly state that there’s a causation, but more often than not the correlation is because of an underlying cause that you have to discover – such as in your example on cocaine where there’s a correlation, but the causation is not with the educational institution.
posted by Fitz on
DALE CARPENTER: answers a thesis NEVER PRESENTED
(Mr Carpenter writes)
“First, one might argue that gay marriage has caused problems to marriage itself, like rising cohabitation and unwed childbirths.”
Indeed, ideas have consequences. Kurtz never maintains that the introduction of same-sex ?marriage? causes ?rising cohabitation and unwed childbirths? through some unimagined mechanism. To the contrary he asserts that societies beliefs about what marriage now means is one driving mechanism in marital decline. Its important to note what Kurtz thesis actually says before (like Carpenter does) one paints it as a simplistic and unsupported ?magic? causal connection.
“Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has. More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.”
Stanley Kurtz, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia, WEEKLY STANDARD, Feb. 2, 2004,
As both authors readily acknowledge, same-sex marriage is part of an ongoing trend in western nations that both reinforces and further exacerbates the decline of the institution of marriage. The criticisms pointed out by Carpenter are readily acknowledged, conceded and effectively accounted for by both authors. It is unfair to proceed as if these obvious corresponding factors have not been acknowledged.
(Mr Carpenter writes)
“Even Blankenhorn?s correlation is suspect, in a way very similar to Kurtz?s. Non-traditional attitudes about marriage in countries with SSM preceded the recognition of SSM, just as signals of marital decline in Europe preceded SSM. Though I haven?t gone back and checked the previous international surveys from the 1980s and 1990s, I?ll bet my mulberry tree they show that.
Well, neither Kurtz nor Blakenhorn would take that bet. As I demonstrate with Kurtz thesis above: a proper scholarly case is laid out acknowledging both the way same-sex marriage reinforces existing trends in marital decline & become further corrosive elements in maintaining a robust marriage culture. Blakenhorn?s thesis equally acknowledges the sophistication that Carpenter eschews in his simplistic ?unpacking? of these scholars work.
“In my article, I lay out new evidence strongly suggesting that, around the world, a cluster of marriage-weakening trends and attitudes (one of which is the embrace of gay marriage) hang together and appear to be mutually reinforcing. No, I cannot prove causation beyond any doubt (no one could); and no, scholars cannot measure with scientific precision the exact degrees and instrumentalities of causation. But to me, the evidence suggesting mutual reinforcement, a kind of syndrome of related attitudes and behaviors ? i.e., evidence suggesting some form of causation ? is quite persuasive. Carpenter is free to disagree, of course, but to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than simply repeat back to me that correlation does not prove causation.
posted by Brian Kevin Beck on
Well the above analyses are good. Well I myself am too simplistic. Like “wow, the phenomenon of [invalid problematic] Resistance Evasion Denial of a new/threatening issue, and/or rationalizing an already-held stand, takes many forms, protean in fact–and it’s interesting to see new attempts come up.” Like this here. Convoluted but clever–but depressing. God (or Dog) (or Minerva & Athena!) Help Us–Adam and Steve next door are not going to queer the neighborhood–or marriage. Marriage is (1) a religious ceremony, (2) a political civil right, (3) a personal bond, (4) a community recognition (credit to Moore). My superficial understanding of this person’s argument, is that it verges on Magical Thinking: SSM is a spooky Force which can inexplicably upset traditional applecarts. Unsavory–like when my traditional-religious cousin said she didn’t object to a gay couple visiting, but they shouldn’t stay overnight, because of the children. Pedophilia was not the issue–those Queer Vapors contaminating everything, were. Depressing, but predictable and comprehensible… See how insensitive my own superficial response can be? Alas…
posted by men328 on
I actually believe that Blankenhorn has a very rational approach and thoroughly studied analysis of SSM. He does not sway to the right or the left – he just studies the facts. I heard him speak recently and was very impressed. He is passionate about what he does and very eloquent. What is his religion anyway? I do know that he has an M.A. in social history from England and graduated magna cum laude in social studies from Harvard. I don’t think he is an art historian.