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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

It is not due to bureacracy but due to an developed economy.

(The number of births to unwed mothers) / (total number of births.)

The birth rate would be the denominator.

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.