{"id":905,"date":"2004-06-11T11:39:06","date_gmt":"2004-06-11T19:39:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2004\/06\/11\/poll-cause-and-effect\/"},"modified":"2004-06-11T11:39:06","modified_gmt":"2004-06-11T19:39:06","slug":"poll-cause-and-effect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=905","title":{"rendered":"Poll: Cause and Effect?"},"content":{"rendered":"

As readers are aware from my recent articles<\/a>, I contend the campaign for same sex marriage has lead to a deceleration in the rate-of-increase in-the-non-marital birth ratio [ROI-NMBR][1]<\/sup> in the United States. As I see it, Dr. Stanley Kurtz and I agree on one thing: there is a causal link between SSM and the ROI-NMBR.<\/p>\n

It has come to my attention that this causal link is disputed.<\/p>\n

In this article, I will provide hyperlinks to arguments for and against the causal link. I also invite readers to participate in a poll<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I will begin by presenting the case supporting the causal link. First, Dr. Kurtz, who has earned a Ph. D. in social anthropology from Harvard, says there is a causal link between SSM and ROI-NMBR. If such an elite educated person<\/a> says a causal link exists, must it not be so?<\/p>\n

Others also believe it. As recently as May 30, three days days after I published my first article showing the causal link for the American data, and two days after it was picked up by MarriageDebate.com, Maggie Gallagher<\/a>, a white, educated elite opponent of SSM appeared to endorsed the cause and effect relationship and provided a supporting theory, saying: <\/p>\n

To me, the most persuasive part of Stanley Kurtz’s argument is this: If you go around telling people that marriage has nothing in particular to do with making and raising children, people just might believe you. <\/div>\n

Shortly afterward, a blogger Michael Sellitto<\/a> posting at MarriageDebate.com also agreed there could be a causal link, writing:<\/p>\n

I agree with Maggie that same-sex marriages have an effect on how other people behave, but I disagree with her claim of what that effect is. She believes it hurts “marriage,” I believe the opposite.<\/div>\n

I believe that summarizes the arguments in favor of the causal link. Let us now turn to arguments against it.<\/p>\n

Almost as soon as I posted my first article<\/a> in this series, Julian said <\/p>\n

Personally, if pressured to guess, I’d say that if there’s a relation, it’s that some wider cultural trend has created the responsibility ethos that created both activism among gays for marriage rights and a reduction of illegitimacy. <\/div>\n

Later on, Rachel Ann<\/a> noticed I buried Julian’s observation deep in the footnotes of this article.<\/a> Probably suspecting[a]<\/a><\/sup> my intention to evade Julian’s comments, she posted<\/a> to endorse his point of view. This raised the visibility of the idea. Afterwards both Trish Wilson<\/a>[b]<\/a><\/sup> and Don P. posted in support of Julian.<\/p>\n

How can one fail to be suprised by all this support despite the fact that Julian has expended very little ink<\/i> to support his claim. Certainly he has devoted much less ink than either Dr. Kurtz, Mr. Katz or I have![2]<\/sup><\/p>\n

These are not the only critics of the proposed causal link. Since my first article appeared, I have discovered people posting on other blogs also believe there is no causal link.<\/p>\n

These include:<\/p>\n