In a recent blog post, I took note of a column in which Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune writes that I, among other gay-marriage advocates, "forthrightly asserted that granting gays access to matrimony will have no discernible [social] impact." My quote:
"I wouldn't expect much effect on the social indicators that would be visible to the naked eye," said Jonathan Rauch.
In my book and elsewhere, of course, I've argued that same-sex marriage is more likely to strengthen the culture of marriage than weaken it, and that shutting out gays, far from being risk-free, would be likely to redefine marriage as a civil-rights violation.
In order not to appear any more inconsistent than I actually am, I want to put on record the whole paragraph that I sent to Chapman:
Hi Steve. SSM directly affects only a small number of couples, so direct effects on the non-gay population are likely to be small. Cultural effects-e.g., bolstering the norm of marriage vs. normalizing alternative family structures-are indirect and distinguishing signal from noise would be hard. So I wouldn't expect much effect on the social indicators that would be clearly visible to the naked eye.
I'm not sure why Steve edited out the word "clearly," which made the point a bit, um, clearer: direct, immediate impacts of allowing gay marriage will be small, because so few couples are directly involved. Indirect effects, ramifying through the culture in the form of, say, increased (or decreased) support for the norm of marriage, may be quite large over time. But it's hard to trace these indirect cultural influences with any specificity, or to know what would have happened under some alternative scenario. Identifying them will require some fairly sophisticated research (thus: "not clearly visible to the naked eye").
So, don't get me wrong: either allowing or banning gay marriage will probably have some effects on heterosexual behavior. But the obvious effects will be small, and the larger effects won't be obvious.
6 Comments for “Gay Marriage, Straight Disaster?”
posted by TS on
I don’t get a clear sense of what the dispute or issue actually is from this article.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
The only way I can see hetero marriages being affected is if gay men and women pressured into opposite sex marriages divorce those spouses and connect to the more appropriate marriage of their choice.
And much less of the opposite sex marriages would occur in the first place.
And I doubt that Chapman could argue that this is a bad thing.
posted by John Howard on
Steve Chapman hasn’t acknowledged my annoying lone voice breaking the silence that I posted as a comment and sent him an email. My email might have hit a spam filter, as all my sperm and egg laden emails tend to be, so in hopes of either him or Jonathan acknowledging me and the impact I’ve been citing, I’ll copy it here:
Dear Steve,
I applaud you calling out the leading “marriage defenders” for not
making actual claims or predictions, they frustrate me as well.
I am opposed to same-sex marriage because I am opposed to genetic
engineering of humans and believe people should only be created by the
union of the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman.
My problem with same-sex marriage is that it will either give same-sex
couples the right to attempt to conceive children together, and in so
doing, open the door to other forms of genetic modification, and/or
that it will take away the right of married couples to attempt to
conceive children together. It is logically impossible for it not to
do one or perhaps both of these things. The only way to both protect
the right of all marriages to attempt to procreate together using
their own genes, and prohibit same-sex couples from attempting to
conceive together using their own genes, is to exclude same-sex
couples from marriage.
Marriage always has meant that the couple is allowed to conceive
together, and this right should be preserved, not equated to the right
of same-sex couples to conceive together. We need to affirm that all
people have an equal right to procreate, but only with someone of the
other sex.
Please see my website at http://www.eggandsperm.org and blog at
eggandsperm.blogspot.com for links to articles about the science of
same-sex conception and my suggested resolution, “The Egg and Sperm
Civil Union Compromise”
Thank you,
John Howard
posted by Vikas on
Dear John Howard,
After reading your comments above , i m not at all surprised or annoyed, Because you are already frustrated by gay marriage because you believe people should be born only by the unioin of sperm and egg. I dont know of any report so far, where any offspring has been produced by the unioin of sperm and sperm or egg and egg. However, cloning and Protoplast fusion defy this law of nature where new generation can be produced by the fusion of any cell from the body.
In the biological world, plants and animals, reproduction takes place by various other methods where there is no need of sperm or egg.
Well, about genetic enginnering, its not new, its decades old technique and being used everywhere in the industry and medicine far too commonly. the society is changing and this change may bring discomfort to some, but the change will come..
If some people can lead a free and happy life, where they are not imprisoned by the ideologies of others, just beacsue they are minority, then this change should be welcome ..
Homosexuals are just a handfull, compared to heterosexuals, why is the entire institution of opposite sex marriage reacting so strongly? is it that weak ?
I think everybody has the basic right to freedom, and lead a life where he can perform and contribute maximum to his country.
thanks and regards..
posted by jerry mickle on
A few nights ago, I was haphazardly watching one of the political talk shows. It may have been Rachel Maddow. In any case there was a comment by someone that since gays have been allowed to marry in Massachusetts, the state’s divorce rate has declined. It is now back to pre WWII levels of the 30s.
Sadly my internet search skills are not sufficient to find a reference to this.
posted by SEO on
This is an awasome article. Very basic but extermely effective movements to build a great body.
======
Girish
======
drapery Toronto–drapery Toronto