At least that’s what the Heritage Foundation says. It’s going to kill 900,000 babies.
On the surface, abortion and same-sex marriage may seem unrelated. However, as explained in an amicus brief of 100 scholars of marriage, filed in the pending Supreme Court marriage cases and summarized here, the two are closely linked in a short and simple causal chain that the Supreme Court would be wise not to set in motion.
Of course, this being the Heritage Foundation, they lie. There is no short and simple causal chain
linking the two — what they have is an over-extended correlation stapled together with unjustified and indirect assumptions.
Their first observation is that marriage rates have gone down in nations and states where same-sex marriage is legalized. This is sort of true, they have. But what they don’t tell you is that marriage rates have been declining for decades. They try to paper over this awkward fact by arguing that the marriage rate was stable…between 2009 and 2012. This looks an awful lot like their strategy in dealing with climate change: find a few data points on one side, then a few data points on the other, and draw a line between them.
But by making up a correlation and cherry-picking data from a few places, they then claim that same-sex marriage causes a decline in marriage rates. This is not true. And even if the data did support their correlation, that is not evidence of a causal relationship.
It’s a baffling argument in the first place. Do they think men and women break off their engagements to each other because the law suddenly makes same-sex relationships available?
The next step in their argument is to point out that single women get abortions at an almost 5 times greater rate than married women. I can believe that. Marriage can provide a supporting framework for having children, and also immediately removes the stigma from pregnancy — the stigma that conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation encourages. (Hmm, that suggests that maybe, by vilifying single mothers and unwed pregnancy, the Heritage Foundation kills babies, using their same logic).
Notice, though, that once again they have made a correlation between married status and abortion rates — they have not shown a causal relationship. There is no reason to think that being single causes women to have abortions, even if the logic behind it is plausible.
But now it’s time for the Heritage Foundation to link the two correlations, and again, there’s a lack of a causal relationship or even any sense. Same-sex marriage reduces the marriage rate, and single women have a higher frequency of abortions, therefore, same-sex marriage must cause abortions! I guess because a) same-sex marriages don’t count as marriages to them, b) they believe same-sex marriages are equivalent to being single, c) that same-sex marriages do not provide the same stability and security that heterosexual marriages do, and d) gay men are abandoning poor heterosexual women so they resort to promiscuous sex and abortions. It’s all nonsense.
There’s also no consideration given to age, which will also skew their correlations in complicated ways. Older women are more likely to be married than younger women, while younger women have less economic stability and are more likely to find abortions necessary. There are other complications: did you know lesbian women are more likely to be victims of sexual assault, and young lesbians are more likely to become pregnant than young heterosexuals? Guess we ought to marry ’em off to any man that will take them, because wedding bells make domestic abuse OK.
And of course, they don’t even consider the central question: why should we equate abortion with killing babies, and for that matter, why should either being single or having an abortion be considered undesirable?
100 scholars of marriage
Hurrrr.
On the graph, divorces seem to be dropping at the same rate as marriages.
I bet there’s something causal in there.
Lies, damned lies, and the Heritage Foundation.
Why, yes. Yes they do. (/sarcasm)
“Scholars of marriage”
I think that means that they have “Mrs” degrees. It used to be a thing.
That would be like they’re saying hetero marriage is the last-resort, that most people who do so out of resistance, and would have preferred same sex partners.
I guess this falls under their assertion that “orientation” is a free-will choice. So gays only happen when it is an acceptable option. Forbid the option so everyone will “choose” hetero partnerships.
So with fewer hetero marriages, birthrates fall, so all the heteros will become depopulated, leaving the would totally ghay, with a birthrate of zero! doom!!! [cue ominous background music] *duh* duh duuuuuu*****
–
pffft irrational
This is simply not true – divorce is caused by margarine! How can you argue with the data?
http://www.tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1703
Not while there are turkey basters left in the world.
I think a nontrivial number of conservatives really do believe that social sanction is what makes men heterosexual. It seems a reasonable belief for a man with any homosexual stirrings – you might think that every man is 100% gay, and all of the apparently-straight men you see in the world are just really good at closeting. (Growing up in a conservative social environment would prevent you and others from ever admitting to such feelings, plus the widespread idea that men are either 0 or 6 on the Kinsey scale with nothing allowed in between).
You see evidence of this in a lot of areas: the idea that homosexuality is a choice, that it’s easier than heterosexuality, etc.
Take those ideas to their logical conclusion, and the idea falls out that if being gay was ever socially acceptable, society would fall apart as men stopped ever pairing up with women.
Can’t argue with that – but what about the decline in margarine consumption, hmm? What’s causing that? Obviously, it’s the lack of Norwegian oil coming into the country …
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=358
(I had a feeling there was something fishy about that last tub of margarine I bought.)
How dare you focus on margarine and ignore the catastrophe fishing boat drownings caused by marriage:
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=598
Sink marriage! Keep *people* afloat
At what point does the ‘religious freedom’ argument switch to “My religion says I shouldn’t walk among non-believers, therefore, in the name of religious freedom, only members of my religion can be in the country.”
How about a litmus test for the heritage foundation? Let’s look at the two spikes at the end of World War II. Some completely justified inferences:
1) World Wars cause marriage
2) World Wars cause divorce
3) World Wars cause, on average (n=2), more marriage than divorce
So if marriage and divorce are just numbers games – as tacitly implied by the HF’s arguments – should we therefore be having more World Wars to maximise the number of marriages? The logic is flawless! (if viewed through the bottom of a proverbial bottomless beer glass)
A minor caveat would be that wars kill babies but, wild guess on my part, groups like the HF probably aren’t too bothered by that.
P.S.: Followed the link regarding sexual assault. I keep underestimating just how much society sucks. Maybe we can build a nicer one after WW XII (by which time all the survivors should be married. All three of them.)
In countries where the marriage rate is higher and women tend to get married younger, married women have more abortions than single women do. Even in the US, never-married, non-cohabiting women have only 45% of the abortions, and 60% of abortions are had by women who have had at least one child already. (Guttmacher Institute)
-Wikipedia
If I read that chart correctly, there were 11 marriages per 1000 people in 1973, and only about 6.5 in 2012. This PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that The Heritage Foundation is the cause of declining marriage!!!!111!!!!1
I don’t like babies.
The existence of the Heritage Foundation is convincing disproof of the notion of intelligent design.
“Their first observation is that marriage rates have gone down in nations and states where same-sex marriage is legalized. This is sort of true, they have. But what they don’t tell you is that marriage rates have been declining for decades.”
As I’ve long said, any observation that requires a fucking time machine in order for it to work isn’t an observation, it’s bullshit.
It doesn’t stop the bullshitters, it merely calls the bullshitters on their bullshit in front of their audience.
Besides, I have the only operational time machine and it’s stuck in regular speed forward mode only, the TURDIS isn’t going anywhere.
Next up from these brain trusts:
Only women can become lesbians and obviously, abortions are being caused by lesbians or something equally circular.
With a graphic of old white men, nodding an affirmative or something.
Just more of the best, from a three ring circus that wants to misrule the land into oblivion.
It can’t be too hard for the HairytAge dummies to find some stats that contradict their thesis, such as:
Abortion rates have also gone down over the past 40 years from over 350 per 1000 live births in the late ’70’s to close to 200 per 1000 in the last few years. see here
Marriage rates have gone down everywhere, including Ireland, where abortion has been illegal. see here
The first in the list of those “100 scholars of marriage” is a “professor of economics who specializes in international finance and economic development”. How the fuck that makes someone a “scholar of marriage” is anyone’s guess.
If they really thought they have the truth on their side, why do they have to continually lie so much?
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) @ 6;
That is exactly what christo-fascist dominionists believe, as demonstrated by Santorum and his claim that the constituency of people who have heterosexual sex for recreational purposes (rather, one assumes, than as a distasteful but necessary duty to bring forth the next generation) is very small, while simultaneously casting homosexual sex as a nigh irresistible (and dangerous, because according to idiots like Santorum teh ghey = the doom of humanity, because reasons) ‘temptation’.
This type of authoritarian numpty really does honestly believe that the legalization of same sex marriage will destroy heterosexual relationships, as irrational and downright stupid as such a notion undeniably is, because apparently they think that, given the choice, most people who identify as straight would have same sex relationships and marriages over heterosexual ones, even though in every jurisdiction where same sex marriages have been legalized the significant majority of relationships and marriages remain heterosexual relationships and marriages. Why, it is almost as though people’s sexual orientation is not a choice, and doesn’t suddenly change because the law does…
No problem. There’ll be other dishes available at the next atheist pot luck.
@Marcus #16, no problem, we love babies.
They taste so yummy!
OK, their hands and feet do, I’m infamous for playing with them and putting an entire hand or foot in my mouth, to the delight of the baby. Eventually, they figure out how to tickle the roof of my mouth…