|
 |
 |
 Tuesday, February 28, 2006
More on Kurtz's Dutch correlations / Jon Rauch
Stanley Kurtz’s reply (search on "Rauch") to my post below illustrates why I’ve had trouble getting a handle on his writings on same-sex unions in Europe: he flows back and forth among (at least) three propositions, as if they were three ways of saying the same thing: 1) Same-sex unions caused a sudden rise in out-of-wedlock childbirth, most of which would not otherwise have happened; 2) Same-sex unions contributed to such a rise, much of which would otherwise have happened; 3) Same-sex unions failed to prevent or reverse such a rise. In his NRO article, Kurtz explicitly claims #3, but then goes on to write as if he has established #1 (see, e.g., the quotation in my last post). Now, in his response to my post, he seems to alight on #2. In this argumentative game of whack-a-mole, I’m really not sure what the hypothesis is. My impression is that #3 is true; #1 is false; and #2 may or may not be true, that this is a tricky empirical question which I’m not qualified to opine on, and that the extent to which it’s true (or false) matters a lot. If, for instance, same-sex unions were a minor contributor to a major trend with its own momentum, then its negative effects on out-of-wedlock childbirth might be a reasonable price to pay for the considerable benefits that these unions bring to gay couples, or for benefits that they may provide to society. One recent study, for example, suggests that same-sex unions may have reduced the rate of syphilis in Europe. I’ll leave readers to judge for themselves, on the basis of Chart 8 (below), whether the critical turn in Dutch out-of-wedlock childbirth happened in the late 1970s or the late 1990s; Kurtz and I obviously won’t agree on that point. Leaving that aside, what I want to know is: Why does Kurtz think the line plotted in Chart 8 supports a claim that same-sex unions contributed to a “sudden” acceleration of out-of-wedlock childbearing?  For readers’ convenience, I reproduce the chart here overlaid with three lines, denoting the passage of registered partnerships (1997), their effective date (1998), and same-sex marriage (2001). If we’re playing the simple-correlation game (Kurtz’s game, not mine!), where’s the correlation? How is it that legal changes in 1997 and 1998 explain a social change that took place in 1995? Why—again using the (dubious) simple-correlation method—ignore the apparent deceleration of out-of-wedlock childbirth after 2001, when gay marriage happens? I just can’t see any methodologically consistent way of reading this chart that supports either hypothesis 1 or hypothesis 2. In another recent NRO post, Kurtz refers to the Netherlands as “the place where the causal effect of same-sex marriage can be isolated most clearly.” This is the clearest relationship? 
 VOTE
|
||||||||
 |
|
home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact |
|
Jon Rauch, have you read the comments to your previous post on Kurtz's article?
You ask more questions but it is unclear that you have read the responses to your previous questions.
This may not be related to the marriage debate that is being waged here, but I wanted to put in my $0.02 anyway. The graph shows that nearly half of all children in the Netherlands are now being born out of wedlock. However, being Dutch (although I've been living in the US for the past 5 year) I want to make sure that people understand that this does not mean that these kids are all being raised in single-parent households. I have many friends who have committed relationships (15 years and longer), who share mortgages and all the other things that married people share, including children, except they are not married. It has become very acceptable and 'normal' to do this in Holland. My (now) husband and I never felt the need to get married until we moved to the US where you are more or less expected to get married (and if you don't something must be wrong with you/your relationship). So we got married on what we (still) call our 10th anniversary. Had we still been living in Holland, there is a good chance we would not have done this, for monetary reasons and because our families don't get along very well (so a wedding day is not something we desired). I think a lot of people in Holland now make that same decision.
In his NRO article, Kurtz explicitly claims #3, but then goes on to write as if he has established #1 (see, e.g., the quotation in my last post). Now, in his response to my post, he seems to alight on #2.
Looking at this strictly on your terms it appears #3 does not conflict with either #1 or #2. This is a gradiation, no?
As a gradiation it is important to look at the differences. #3 would be shown by a downturn, not neccissarily a full down turn but perhaps a deceloration. This obviously didn't happen, as you indicate. The only such deceloration that could have happened was 1983. One wonders what event might have triggered it.
But your second annotation is interesting, you stated Kurtz writes "as if" #1. But wouldn't writing along the lines of #2 be "as if" #1? I don't see how one could distinguish here, this looks like a smudge job. A contribution is described "as if" it is a cause, as a contribution is a cause among many causes.
Lets just say that establishing both #3 and #2 is consistent with his writings, as far as I can tell. Though I am getting a bit symantic and technical, I believe the point is very crucial to reaching mutual understanding.
Your graph is enlightening, but lets look at this in the consistency of the case being made by Kurtz. What would the graph look like if you marked the time the campaign initiate rather than completion dates in 1997 and 1998?
Do you feel the public discussion had no sway in this matter?
I believe this is what Chairm has been talking about and makes a compelling point. That you have not replied to it has prompted the questions above.
Jon Rauch asked, "How is it that legal changes in 1997 and 1998 explain a social change that took place in 1995?"
The changes at law were preceded by and accompanied by the social and political campaign for gay marriage. What was the point of the campaign if not to change the public meaning of marriage? That changed behavior.
The legal framework for unwed cohabitation riped by 1989. The Supreme Court produced a decision, based on a very prominent case, which prompted a bigtime government commission on marriage. After the unquiet public hearings and after the dust had settled, the gay campaign had its victory by the mid-1990s. RP ripened into SSM. Whatever the unwed cohabitation framework had changed in behavior, it looks like it has been overshadowed by the influence of the gay marriage campaign.
The change in public meaning of marriage appears to have had a concomittant change in marital (or rather nonmarital) behavior especially amongst women (and their male sexual partners) of childbearing age. The accelerated pace of change in the share of nonmarital births of first borns has been accompanied by a similar change with second borns. The biggest boosts in the trendline since the 1970s occured in the context of the SSM campaign and its enactment.
The behavior of man-woman sexual unions did change, no question. In contention is the impact of the years of redefining marriage and parenthood in Dutch society. I think it is much less clear how the behavior of same-sex sexual unions has been altered but perhaps the measurables are not available as yet.
The Netherlands: Straight Line Trends for Comparison with actual trend in share of nonmarital births of first borns since the 1970s.
Kurtz refers to the Netherlands as “the place where the causal effect of same-sex marriage can be isolated most clearly.” This is the clearest relationship?
Probably; after all, the arguments against same-sex couples marrying legally are not based on reason or on data. When you have faith, anything will do to feed it.
The reason and the data are under discussion here.
Civic-minded SSMers, like Jon Rauch, have offerred to discuss the matter in open and frank discussion.
Exhibiting bad faith undercuts both Jon Rauch and the apparent promise that has been made.
Nonetheless, nobody here has said anything that answers Rauch's question, where's the spike? It isn't a spike, just a continuation of a trend. Yawn. What a ridiculous argument. And what about the nice Dutch person's point that people live in hetero unions without that ridiculous religious ceremony because socially it is unnecessary in a truly civilized society like the Netherlands? I see nobody went near that because folks like Chairmed are just a little afraid of true love not being ennobled by a white dress. Well, prejudice will always win out over logic. That is the sad fact in America today.
If the chart does not show a spike, please provide an example of a demographic trendline is a spike, in your view.
At the very least, the accelerated slope in the chart is indicative of a significant divergence from the past trendline.
Adnittedly, I do not see a white dress on the chart.
Post a Comment
<< Home