At MarriageDebate.com, Eve Tushnet asks:
I am! I’m sick, sick and tired! Why can’t they just embrace the Scandinavian data?[1]
(Click figure to see larger version.)
====== End Note
[1] The change in the non-marital birth ratio is the “key” parameter, according to Stanley Kurtz. The underlying data in this graph comes from newCronos. You will need to go through a lengthy registration process to access the data. Not all countries provided data for all years. My graph includes data from countries supplying data from 1991 to 2002 (or 2001 when 2002 data are missing).
Scandinavia does not appear to be doing badly compared to Europe as a whole.
Calculating a correlation coefficient, I get a negative correlation between “being a Scandinavian Country” and the “nonmarital birth ratio”. That is legal same sex marriage correlates with smaller increases in the nonmarital birth ratio. Banning same sex marriage correlates with larger increases.
That would seem to be the opposite of the effect suggested by Kurtz, who appears to believe he has proven SSM increases out of wedlock births. To “prove” this, he discusses the parameter in the Netherlands only, does not compare the value of this change in out of wedlock births to values in the rest of Europe, does not calculate a correlation coefficient at all, and seems to think the Netherlands has the highest rate of increase in out of wed lock births in Europe..
well, that correllation/causation thing is a kind of important detail.
it’s a variation of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and a logical fallacy.
what I’m saying is that as long as people keep asserting that their correlation is proof of causation, people will continue telling them that in fact, it isn’t.
now that that’s done, tangent: why do nonmarital birth ratios matter at all? whether or not there is a correlation aren’t there more significant societal evils they can attempt to correlate (ahem “show causation”) for SSM than straight people having sex?
how about drug use? one side or another could put together a graph that shows a dramatic change in drug use since Scandinavia went with SSM. if there’s been a decrease, we get our graph, they say “correlation isn’t causation” and we get to say “exactly, fuckhead. SSM and nonmarital births have as little to do with one another as SSM and junkie reduction.”
and if there’s been an increase, then hey, they can die SSM to a societal evil that is actually of consequence.
You’re right — as long as people make a particular mistake, people will point it out. One thing readers here proved: They don’t think correlation automatically means causation even when the data favor a position they endorse. They want to hear a believable cause and effect mechanism, and a positive statistically significant correlation that doesn’t seem to be cherry picked.
Of course, if there isn’t even a correlation someone might point that out too! Or if the correlation happens to be in the opposite direction from that claimed by opponents of SSM, someone might point that out. And, as we can see, the correlation for this variable would not support the idea that SSM leads to increased out of wed lock birthrates.
I happen to like to point out the correlation doesn’t even favor the other side because…. well.. there are those who just won’t listen to the other one! :)
You know, I don’t know why Kurtz picked this parameter to lament the death of marriage. He picked it. Honestly, I think he picked it because the marriage rate suggests that marriage is picking up in Scandinavia.
It goes to suggest Ms. Gallagher’s frustration with…
science.
I’m not tired of saying it or hearing it, because it is the WORST abused methodology in the social sciences that I have seen over the years.
Even in a slightly more ‘hard’ science like ecology it is overused.
I would LOVE to believe some of the correlations that support my view.. but frankly, unless a cause can be also shown by either solid evidence or proof, correlations.. especially weak correlations mean diddly squat.
If Ms. Gallagher and her ilk wish to be taken seriously as social scientists I would suggest she take skepticism of correlations (especially the extremely weak one Kurtz has offered that can be countered with other correlations) SERIOUSLY instead of dismissing the criticisms with her schoolhouse raising of the hands.
I suppose I’m still not impressed with out-of-wedlock birthrates. As much as science is on your side with this one, there are better things to be focused on and had with SSM than births within marriage.
Again, I find it very difficult to justify the emphatic support for births within marriage when research shows that marriage does little for children if other factors are not present. Restigmatizing or further stigmatizing out-of-wedlock births does little for the cause of inclusivity, which SSM is a part of.
Surely we can find other things that SSM will benefit, yes?
Yes. There are other things SSM will benefit. I think civil rights are very important. I think recognition of personal relationships between adults are important.
That said, I do think it is important to engage opponents arguments– particularly when they distort data. Legalized SSM is NOT positively correlated with increases in the out of wedlock birth rate.
I see. I was uncertain where the claim of correlation originated.
I have a head like an unalphabetized encyclopedia so I can’t quote a source for this, but I thought out-of-wedlock births were declining in Scandinavia because, being responsible people, they had created a whole lot of bureaucracy to ensure that children would be taken care of properly, and it gradually got a whole lot easier to get a marriage license (one form) than not (many, many different forms).
In developed countries, the birth rate decreases.
It is not due to bureacracy but due to an developed economy.
Yes. The birth *rate* has been dropping in developed economies. The plot shows the non-marital birth ratio which is
(The number of births to unwed mothers) / (total number of births.)
The birth rate would be the denominator.
Well, being Scandinavian all I can say is: does it matter? So what if SSM correlates with increase in non-marital births? Who cares? Everyone has the right to get married if they want to and everyone has to right to have kids if they want to. Actually I think there IS correlation. It goes hand in hand with an decrease in “old school morality”. And that’s good.
>>Well, being Scandinavian all I can say is: does it matter?
Ahh…. That is, in fact, a very good question! In fact, there would be two separate questions:
All in all, does it matter? (Which is probably what you are asking.) That is to say: If kids are cared for, and are well brought up and happy does it matter?
The other question is this: Does it matter in the debate for SSM in the US? (A totally different question.)
The answer to the second is: Yes. The reason is that the *opponents* of ssm think Stanley Kurtz has “shown” there is a correlation between legalizing same sex marriage and increasing illegitimacy.
The two reasonable counter arguments against his areguments are:
1) Correlation doesn’t prove causation. (True– but everyone also knows that if there is causation, there will be correlation. So, this doesn’t neceesarily convince opponents.)
2) The correlation is actually in the other direction non-marital birth rates are dropping in countries with legalized SSM. (For whatever reason.)
In the context of the political discussion it is useful to show the second.
I think a closer look at your data reveals the case again gay marriage and not for it. Just looking at your chart I noticed that almost all of the countries with the highest rates were part of the USSR and had to deal with the collapse of their government and resulting chaos. The Netherlands really stands out as a western European country going through deep marital decline without an economic modernization like Ireland (already happened in NL). You can get the full story from Kurtz here: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp
I find the whole argument nuts and a way to scapegoat ssm. Basically a lot of changes have been going on in our society. Marriage and the family are hurting. We need to do something about it – something that involves changing the way heterosexual married people behave. So let’s focus on ourselves.