S.S.M. And L.U.N.C.

[wenglund]

SSM stands for Same-Sex Marriage and

LUNC stands for Law of Unintended Negative Consequences.

Throughout the course of public debate about legalizing SSM, it has not been uncommon for supporters to query about what harm may come to heterosexual marriages and society were homosexuals allowed to legally marry? Typically, this question was asked rhetorically because the supporters presupposed there to be no harm. This thread will challenge that presupposition.

Granted, at this point, most minds don't appear to be all that open to change, particularly not in the direction away from pop culture and towards preserving traditional marriage. So, the point of this thread isn't so much to change minds (it my be too late for that), but to prepare us for what may lay ahead if the trend continues and the U.S. ends up legalizing SSM.

I propose to look at the unintended negative consequences of SSM to society on at least two levels: 1) direct and near-term, and 2) indirect and longterm. The direct/near-term consequences will include added financial, administrative, and adjudicative burdens potentially piled onto the government and society from day one. And, the indirect/long-term consequences will include potential legislative and adjudicative trends growing out of SSM, and the plausible impact of SSM on the fundamental institution of society (the family), and thus on religion and society at large.

Sound interesting?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 27, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

1) Direct and near-term unintended negative consequences

a. Impact on the federal budget and deficit:

Supporters of gay marriage may have been pleased to learn that in 2004 the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) prepared an analysis of "Potential Budgetary Effects of Recognizing SSM. The analysis essentially concluded that: "In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions—ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners’ eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)—in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.' In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government."

In other words, the CBO estimated that in the near term, the federal government would benefit financially from legalizing SSM.

I will let the supporters of SSM bask in the glow of that seemingly favorable news for a moment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 27, 2013 by wenglund

[jwhitlock]

Wade:

One of the claims SSM supporters have made is that SSM will actually strengthen marriage, since allowing "committed", loving gay couples to marry would have the effect of strengthening family units, no matter what form those units take. Personally, I believe the opposite to be true, that SSM and the inferred sexual permissiveness it brings with it serve to further dilute the quality of full commitment in marriage. The concept of full fidelity and commitment in marriage has been attacked over the years to the point where cheating on your spouse is almost a non-issue (the Clinton impeachment, for instance, brought this attitude to light), and SSM could have the effect of eliminating legal recourse in marriage against a cheating spouse.

Thoughts?

[wenglund]

Wade:

One of the claims SSM supporters have made is that SSM will actually strengthen marriage, since allowing "committed", loving gay couples to marry would have the effect of strengthening family units, no matter what form those units take. Personally, I believe the opposite to be true, that SSM and the inferred sexual permissiveness it brings with it serve to further dilute the quality of full commitment in marriage. The concept of full fidelity and commitment in marriage has been attacked over the years to the point where cheating on your spouse is almost a non-issue (the Clinton impeachment, for instance, brought this attitude to light), and SSM could have the effect of eliminating legal recourse in marriage against a cheating spouse.

Thoughts?

Later in the thread I plan to delve extensively into indirect and longterm effects of SSM, and specifically whether the traditional family is in decline, and if so, some of the forces behind the decline (including SSM), and what that decline may mean for religious beliefs and for societies as a whole.

I will be borrowing from seminal works like Mary Eberhardt's recent book on "How the West Really Lost God," which posits the theory that the decline of the family has led to the secularization of various western nations, and thus the moral decline of those nations.

So, you may well be correct.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 27, 2013 by wenglund

[Calm]

SSM could have the effect of eliminating legal recourse in marriage against a cheating spouse.

Isn't it already that way in "no fault divorce" states?

[jwhitlock]

Isn't it already that way in "no fault divorce" states?

No fault divorce applies only in cases where both parties agree to it.

[jwhitlock]

As part of this discussion, I submit this NY Times article about how some gays, with SSM, seek to redefine the parameters of marriage so that it does not include monogamy and fidelity. While this is viewed by them as "strengthening" relationships, it provides evidence that full commitment in marriage is viewed not only as unnecessary by SSM supporters, but also as something that can be restricting and make marriages fail. Note the reference to a member of the church who has decided that such "openness" in marriage has "strengthened" her own marriage.

[Thinking]

Personally, I believe the opposite to be true, that SSM and the inferred sexual permissiveness it brings with it serve to further dilute the quality of full commitment in marriage. The concept of full fidelity and commitment in marriage has been attacked over the years to the point where cheating on your spouse is almost a non-issue (the Clinton impeachment, for instance, brought this attitude to light), and SSM could have the effect of eliminating legal recourse in marriage against a cheating spouse.

Are you inferring that SS couples will be less faithful to each other than hetero couples? Also, why do you then use Bill Clinton (a heterosexual cheater) as an example of this non-commitment to the marriage covenant?

[wenglund]

As part of this discussion, I submit this NY Times article about how some gays, with SSM, seek to redefine the parameters of marriage so that it does not include monogamy and fidelity. While this is viewed by them as "strengthening" relationships, it provides evidence that full commitment in marriage is viewed not only as unnecessary by SSM supporters, but also as something that can be restricting and make marriages fail. Note the reference to a member of the church who has decided that such "openness" in marriage has "strengthened" her own marriage.

Only in our upside-down world would diluting the moral impetus of marriage be considered as "strengthening marriage."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker2013]

As part of this discussion, I submit this NY Times article about how some gays, with SSM, seek to redefine the parameters of marriage so that it does not include monogamy and fidelity. While this is viewed by them as "strengthening" relationships, it provides evidence that full commitment in marriage is viewed not only as unnecessary by SSM supporters, but also as something that can be restricting and make marriages fail. Note the reference to a member of the church who has decided that such "openness" in marriage has "strengthened" her own marriage.

The logic of these arguments make my head spin. It's this kind of stuff that gives our church the old-white-man-homophobic-right-wing-radical persona that the church is so desperately trying to escape.

Let me get this straight (pun intended). A few gay folks think open marriage is a good idea. Therefore, SSM is bad for society. How many straight folks think it's a good idea? 100 times more? 1,000 times more? I therefore submit that straight marriage is bad for society and should be done away with. Seriously?

[TruthSeeker2013]

1) Direct and near-term unintended negative consequences

a. Impact on the federal budget and deficit:

Supporters of gay marriage may have been pleased to learn that in 2004 the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) prepared an analysis of "Potential Budgetary Effects of Recognizing SSM. The analysis essentially concluded that: "In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions—ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners’ eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)—in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges.' In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government."

In other words, the CBO estimated that in the near term, the federal government would benefit financially from legalizing SSM.

I will let the supporters of SSM bask in the glow of that seemingly favorable news for a moment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

By the same logic, the legalization of interracial marriages has increased costs as well, therefore we should outlaw those marriages.

[wenglund]

In other words, the CBO estimated that in the near term, the federal government would benefit financially from legalizing SSM.

Now that I have given SSM supporters enough time to bask in the glow of this seemingly favorable report, it should be noted that there are several problems with the 2004 CBO analysis--apart from it being nearly 9 years out of date and taken under different economic conditions.

First, it assume that all of the estimated 650,000 same-sex couples (or 1.2 million homosexuals) in the U.S. will opt to get married. This would mean that about 11% of homosexuals would get married (as compared with 70% of heterosexuals--see HERE). And, even as paltry as this theoretical percentage is, statistics show that in practice it tends to work out to about half that amount, or 5% (see HERE)

Second, not only is the CBO estimate highly inflated, but the analysis indicates that "in some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase [federal] outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect." (see link above)

Unfortunately, though, the CBO analysis assumes that both will occur. It assumes that even though it may cost some homosexual couples more financially to get married than to remain single (because, among other things, of the "marriage penalty" in taxation) they will get married nevertheless. Now, for a segment of society that is disproportionation dis-inclined to get married, this CBO assumption seem more than a little counter-intuitive.

Logically, it is more likely that those homosexuals who will financially benefit from marriage, a small portion of them may get married, while those who will be financially disadvantaged wont get married, or if a few of them do get married, they will likely file separately so as to avoid the "marriage penalty."

In short, the net revenue increases and cost declination that the CBO was illogically anticipating in its analysis, which would come at the expense of some same-sex married couples, will likely not materialize, leaving the federal government with but revenue decreases and cost increases. Or, in other words, by recognizing SSM nationwide, it would likely produce the opposite result from what the CBO illogically anticipated--it would end up costing the federal government in lower revenues and increased costs of benefits, and this during a time when we are already running alarming budget deficits.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 28, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

By the same logic, the legalization of interracial marriages has increased costs as well, therefore we should outlaw those marriages.

First of all, you are mistaken about the increased cost of interracial marriage. It would cost no more for a heterosexual white male to marry a heterosexual black female than it would for him to marry a heterosexual white female.

Second, you read the CBO report exactly backwards from what was quoted. The CBO analysis suggested that the federal government would experience DECREASED costs, and a net budgetary benefit, by recognizing SSM. Please try and pay better attention.

Third, in my last post, however, I demonstrated some flaws in the CBO analysis, and concluded that cost would increase as you suppose, and there would be a net negative impact on the federal budget. Yet, the intent in drawing this more logical conclusions in this thread wasn't to argue against SSM (if you had read the OP more carefully and with more accurate comprehension, you would have known this), but rather to let us know of the unintended consequences we may face if SSM is recognized nationwide.

And, even were the conclusion about the net increase in costs to have been used as an argument against SSM, it would wouldn't make sense to use it in isolation, but rather in relation to societal benefits, if any, of certain kinds of marriages (as I have done on several previous thread). Since there are significant benefits to society derived from heterosexual marriages (including those that are interracial), and not with SSM, your comparison between interracial marriages and SSM is once again mistaken.

You are batting 0 for 3 in this single post. Not a very good average for someone styling themselves as a "truth seeker."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 28, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The logic of these arguments make my head spin. It's this kind of stuff that gives our church the old-white-man-homophobic-right-wing-radical persona that the church is so desperately trying to escape.

Narrow minds tend to easily spin when the winds of logic blow from a different direction than their worshiped echo chambers. And as the narrow minds spin, so do their tongues, spitting out in various directions propagandistic stereotypes made of straw, ironically assuming that it is the other guys persona from which reasonable people are trying to escape.

Let me get this straight (pun intended). A few gay folks think open marriage is a good idea. Therefore, SSM is bad for society.

Proportionately, it isn't a "few." So you got that wrong. Even still, any proportion of society that believes in open marriage, proportionately dilutes the meaning and meaningfulness of marriage in society, which, for those of us who value marriage, is bad for society.

Hopefully, this will connect the logical dots enough for you, but if not, let me know and I will try and walk you slowly through it so that your head wont keep spinning from common sense.

How many straight folks think it's a good idea? 100 times more? 1,000 times more? I therefore submit that straight marriage is bad for society and should be done away with. Seriously?

Again, in terms of proportions, the gays have it way over the straights when it comes to open relationships--it is the general rule among homosexuals, and the rare exception among heterosexuals.

What actually doesn't make sense is to advocate for adding to the existing problems of openness among heterosexual marriages by inanely including a class of people with proportionately greater problems in that regard. In principle it would be like trying to stop the bleeding by recruiting hemophiliacs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 28, 2013 by wenglund

[TruthSeeker2013]

First of all, you are mistaken about the increased cost of interracial marriage. It would cost no more for a heterosexual white male to marry a heterosexual black female than it would for him to marry a heterosexual white female.

Second, you read the CBO report exactly backwards from what was quoted. The CBO analysis suggested that the federal government would experience DECREASED costs, and a net budgetary benefit, by recognizing SSM. Please try and pay better attention.

Third, in my last post, however, I demonstrated some flaws in the CBO analysis, and concluded that cost would increase as you suppose, and there would be a net negative impact on the federal budget. Yet, the intent in drawing this more logical conclusions in this thread wasn't to argue against SSM (if you had read the OP more carefully and with more accurate comprehension, you would have known this), but rather to let us know of the unintended consequences we may face if SSM is recognized nationwide.

And, even were the conclusion about the net increase in costs to have been used as an argument against SSM, it would wouldn't make sense to use it in isolation, but rather in relation to societal benefits, if any, of certain kinds of marriages (as I have done on several previous thread). Since there are significant benefits to society derived from heterosexual marriages (including those that are interracial), and not with SSM, your comparison between interracial marriages and SSM is once again mistaken.

You are batting 0 for 3 in this single post. Not a very good average for someone styling themselves as a "truth seeker."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In your original post you pointed out that the cost savings were in the near term, therefore I assumed that you meant there would be a cost increase in the long term. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

[jwhitlock]

Are you inferring that SS couples will be less faithful to each other than hetero couples? Also, why do you then use Bill Clinton (a heterosexual cheater) as an example of this non-commitment to the marriage covenant?

I'm inferring nothing. The article stated clearly that sexual fidelity and monogamy are are aspects of marriage that are discarded in a large number of gay relationships, being replaced by "monogamish" or open marriages. SSM supporters want to redefine marriage to "update" it for more "openness" when it comes to sexual relations with others.

Please re-read my comment. I used Clinton of an example of how the concept of monogamy in marriage in general has taken on less and less importance for many people; SSM is an attempt to finally redefine marriage so that total fidelity and monogamy is deemed unnecessary. "Progressive" heterosexuals have been dumbing down commitments in marriage for years; SSM is just the finishing touch in the process.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Narrow minds tend to easily spin when the winds of logic blow from a different direction than their worshiped echo chambers. And as the narrow minds spin, so do their tongues, spitting out in various directions propagandistic stereotypes made of straw, ironically assuming that it is the other guys persona from which reasonable people are trying to escape.

Proportionately, it isn't a "few." So you got that wrong. Even still, any proportion of society that believes in open marriage, proportionately dilutes the meaning and meaningfulness of marriage in society, which, for those of us who value marriage, is bad for society.

Hopefully, this will connect the logical dots enough for you, but if not, let me know and I will try and walk you slowly through it so that your head wont keep spinning from common sense.

Again, in terms of proportions, the gays have it way over the straights when it comes to open relationships--it is the general rule among homosexuals, and the rare exception among heterosexuals.

What actually doesn't make sense is to advocate for adding to the existing problems of openness among heterosexual marriages by inanely including a class of people with proportionately greater problems in that regard. In principle it would be like trying to stop the bleeding by recruiting hemophiliacs.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I would like you to walk me through it slowly because my head is indeed spinning. First, you state that open relationships are more common among homosexuals proportionally. Do you have data to support that? And couldn't a cause of that be the fact that they can't be married (in some states) which leads to less stable relationships?

Second, even if LGBT people had more open relationships and even if this wouldn't change with a societal recognition of their relationships, how would allowing for gay marriage cause straight people to have more open relationships? Or are you suggesting that there would be more open relationships among LGBT people if gay marriage was allowed? And do you have any data backing up either of those opinions? (If they're just opinions than I'm fine with that, but I would love to see some data if you can cite to any).

[TruthSeeker2013]

SSM is an attempt to finally redefine marriage so that total fidelity and monogamy is deemed unnecessary.

Wait, what? How does SSM deem monogamy and fidelity unnecessary? Marriage encourages monogamy and fidelity, doesn't it?

[jwhitlock]

The logic of these arguments make my head spin. It's this kind of stuff that gives our church the old-white-man-homophobic-right-wing-radical persona that the church is so desperately trying to escape.

Let me get this straight (pun intended). A few gay folks think open marriage is a good idea. Therefore, SSM is bad for society. How many straight folks think it's a good idea? 100 times more? 1,000 times more? I therefore submit that straight marriage is bad for society and should be done away with. Seriously?

I see you refused to address the main point of the article, which is that sexual openness in marriage is something that SSM supporters want to normalize. Instead, you referred first to name calling, and then to a totally irrelevant rationalization that had nothing to do with the points made in the article.

It appears that such disclosure about open marriage as an aspect of SSM is something that SSM supporters don't want disclosed publicly. I can understand that. Most people who support SSM have this unrealistic image of homosexual relationships in that they think they are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships, complete with full monogamy and fidelity. Unfortunately, most of them aren't.

What I have found in my reading of gay blogs and articles is that they are looking at SSM as a way of redefining marriage so that it does not hinder them in their lifestyle. Sexual openness and periodic dalliances with partners other than their "spouse" are to be viewed as normal and acceptable in marriage.

Read the article again, and let me know when you're ready to engage the discussion without resorting to what you did in your post.

[jwhitlock]

Wait, what? How does SSM deem monogamy and fidelity unnecessary? Marriage encourages monogamy and fidelity, doesn't it?

Please try reading the article - which is from a gay viewpoint - before you dig yourself in deeper.

[TruthSeeker2013]

"Progressive" heterosexuals have been dumbing down commitments in marriage for years; SSM is just the finishing touch in the process.

As a side note, progressives aren't the only ones pushing gay marriage, a large number of republicans and libertarians are as well. In fact, I'd bet that the 2016 GOP presidential nominee is a supporter of gay marriage.

[jwhitlock]

As a side note, progressives aren't the only ones pushing gay marriage, a large number of republicans and libertarians are as well. In fact, I'd bet that the 2016 GOP presidential nominee is a supporter of gay marriage.

Have you read the article yet? When are you going to engage in the discussion?

[TruthSeeker2013]

I see you refused to address the main point of the article, which is that sexual openness in marriage is something that SSM supporters want to normalize. Instead, you referred first to name calling, and then to a totally irrelevant rationalization that had nothing to do with the points made in the article.

It appears that such disclosure about open marriage as an aspect of SSM is something that SSM supporters don't want disclosed publicly. I can understand that. Most people who support SSM have this unrealistic image of homosexual relationships in that they think they are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships, complete with full monogamy and fidelity. Unfortunately, most of them aren't.

What I have found in my reading of gay blogs and articles is that they are looking at SSM as a way of redefining marriage so that it does not hinder them in their lifestyle. Sexual openness and periodic dalliances with partners other than their "spouse" are to be viewed as normal and acceptable in marriage.

Read the article again, and let me know when you're ready to engage the discussion without resorting to what you did in your post.

I've read the article and don't see how it's relevant to the concerns I'm stating. The article talks about how a single gay couple and a single straight couple are interested in open MARRIAGES. The article also cites a study of open relationships among gay partners without addressing whether they are married or not.I don't see any data about how gay marriage would lead to more open marriages or open relationships either between gay people or straight people. It seems to me that more marriage would mean more fidelity and monogamy.

[jwhitlock]

I've read the article and don't see how it's relevant to the concerns I'm stating. The article talks about how a single gay couple and a single straight couple are interested in open MARRIAGES. The article also cites a study of open relationships among gay partners without addressing whether they are married or not.I don't see any data about how gay marriage would lead to more open marriages or open relationships either between gay people or straight people. It seems to me that more marriage would mean more fidelity and monogamy.

The article is rather straightforward about the clear trend towards open marriage within the framework of SSM; I'm rather surprised that you refuse to see that.

Try Googling "monogamy in same sex marriage" and read some of the articles and blogs by gays on the subject. For instance, here's another article about the subject of monogamy in gay marriages. There is so much of this out there that you can't miss it.

[wenglund]

I would like you to walk me through it slowly because my head is indeed spinning. First, you state that open relationships are more common among homosexuals proportionally. Do you have data to support that?

You evidently didn't read the linked article, which indicates that according to a recent study of homosexual couples, "about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners."

Another study (see HERE) indicates that 75% of those surveyed felt that open relationships "have no negative impact on their primary connection."

"A 2010 study from England entitled, 'Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You', found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship."(see HERE)

Compare this to 2-4% among heterosexual couples. (See HERE)

It is not even close.

And couldn't a cause of that be the fact that they can't be married (in some states) which leads to less stable relationships?

Actually, the cited study was of Bay Area residents, who have been able to enter into legal committed relationships (domestic partnerships) since 1999, which partnerships have "'the same rights, protections, and benefits, and... the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law...' as married spouses."^[1] And, according to this article, some of the same-sex couples featured in the California study were married during the 2008 window.

Also, one would expect that if your theory were correct, homosexual relationships would become more stable when legally committed, as with SSM or civil unions or domestic partnerships. From the research I have seen, there doesn't appear to be a change. In fact, as I indicated on another thread, the rate of promiscuous diseases like STD's in Massachusetts, reversed their downward trend, and began to increase in 2004 when SSM was legalized.

Truth is, the "openness" of gay relationships is cultural in nature and due to homosexual relationships lacking certain natural impediments to openness--i.e. the risk of pregnancy and the cohesiveness of children, particularly biological children.

Second, even if LGBT people had more open relationships and even if this wouldn't change with a societal recognition of their relationships, how would allowing for gay marriage cause straight people to have more open relationships?

I don't know that it would, though there is a good chance of it, and some evidence bears this out. But that isn't the point.

Even still, according to this gay-friendly article: "The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of “marriage,” for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and 'open; sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever...

"Will the gay norm of sexual 'freedom' herald a more relaxed approach to heterosexual marriage, deemphasizing fidelity but encouraging couples to stay together longer? For Dr Hoff, the Gay Couples Study does just that, suggesting that open but non-monogamous relationships build trust and keep couples together, even when sexual interests wander."

Taking this one step further, there is at least one gay activist who admits that the purpose of SSM is to "destroy marriage." (See HERE)

So, don't take it from me. The folks on your side are pretty clear about how SSM is intended to affect traditional marriage--that is assuming you actually read what they have to say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 28, 2013 by wenglund