Home > Daily Kos > Collected Challenges to Dante Atkins

Collected Challenges to Dante Atkins

May 17th, 2010

Dante evidently got all confused reading the responses of the Ruth Institute to his post entitled Ruthless.  So confused, in fact, that he was unable to respond to the challenges I put to him.  I can understand.  Dante’s original post contained lots of error.  Had he made only a couple of errors, only a couple of posts would have sufficed to dispute them.  But Dante emitted a vast avalanche of error.  It took more than a couple of posts to set him straight.

This post will solve that.  It will collect, into one place, several of the challenges I made to him in my series of posts refuting his argument.  If Dante is able to respond adequately to the challenge, I will admit my mistake and I’ll even send him a certificate of apology suitable for framing.  Let’s see how he does:

The economics of Demographic Winter:

Could Dante Atkins please explain how either population or productivity will increase enough to pay for the benefits we promised to our citizens in their old age?

Could he please explain how businesses will remain profitable if there are not enough people born to maintain sufficiently high demand?

Human Rights and Gay Rights during a Demographic Winter:

Could he explain what happens to human rights when people begin to fear declining population, and come up with a reason as to why those abuses would not happen if the population of the West declines in future?   (For examples of gay rights in retreat during a demographic winter, please see Latvia and Lithuania.  Both of these countries are losing population.  In both of these countries, gay rights are being rolled back.  Could he explain how things would be different if the population begins to decrease in the West and people begin to feel the effects?)

Does Marriage Redefinition have any benefit?

Could Dante explain what benefit society would have if we redefined marriage?  Could he do it under the conditions described in this post?

Extra credit

Could Dante please enlighten me as to any mathematical error I made in this post?

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: Daily Kos Tags:
  1. F.Mudd
    May 18th, 2010 at 10:35 | #1

    Hey,

    Just found this. The questions posted above are kind of silly so I’ll answer in place of Dante Atkins.

    Q: Could Dante Atkins please explain how either population or productivity will increase enough to pay for the benefits we promised to our citizens in their old age?

    A: Our population is already increasing. It’s called immigration. If you support a sane immigration policy that allows for these people to become citizens then they could pay taxes.

    Also, that would include comprehensive healthcare insurance reform beyond what was passed and raising the cap on payroll tax earnings for Social Security.

    But if your just interested in targeting gay folks and keeping women at home making babies then keep talking about the scary “Demographic Winter”.

    Q: Could he please explain how businesses will remain profitable if there are not enough people born to maintain sufficiently high demand?

    A: Oh, you mean not enough “Western European” (i.e. not enough white people)? In case you haven’t noticed other people work and buy stuff too.

    Q: Could he explain what happens to human rights when people begin to fear declining population, and come up with a reason as to why those abuses would not happen if the population of the West declines in future? (For examples of gay rights in retreat during a demographic winter, please see Latvia and Lithuania. Both of these countries are losing population. In both of these countries, gay rights are being rolled back. Could he explain how things would be different if the population begins to decrease in the West and people begin to feel the effects?)

    This question doesn’t even make sense. Are you suggesting that gays or certain ethnic groups will be targeted if there are fewer whites? Sounds like a case of homophobia/racism to me.

    P.S. Hitching women to men and telling them to stay at home to make babies is not the answer.

    Q: Could Dante explain what benefit society would have if we redefined marriage? Could he do it under the conditions described in this post?

    How about letting people choose what they want to do with their lives? Just like how I can’t redefine what God means to you due to that pesky thing called the First Amendment you shouldn’t be able to define what marriage means to me.

    So society benefits because people are free. What a concept!

    And your extra credit question!

    Q: Could Dante please enlighten me as to any mathematical error I made in this post?

    A: Equating population growth and decline to poker? Question FAIL.

    But perhaps a better thing to do would be to accept other cultures and not worry about people of color. Being that America is a melting pot and all.

  2. Arlemagne1
    May 18th, 2010 at 11:19 | #2

    Mr. Mudd,

    1. You assert that our population is already increasing. It is. For now. It will not continue forever. But demographic decay is not limited to the West. Non western countries are also experiencing lower birth rates. When you say we should solve the problem by immigration, you realize that you’re condemning the non-western world to the poverty. If they send over their best and brightest workers to pay taxes here, what will become of their home countries? Nothing good.

    2. I mentioned nothing about race. You just threw that in there to make me look bad. You made yourself look bad by playing a race card where it was not appropriate. Shame on you.

    3. You seem to be unaware that 1) Latvia and Lithuania are populated almost exclusively by white people. Race does not enter into the equation at all, except for your pathetic attempt to play the race card. 2) That gay rights laws are being rolled back in those countries as their populations decline. See, for instance: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_daring_baltic_ban_on_gay_propaganda/
    Shame on you for playing the race card to cover up your ignorace.

    4: When I asked about the benefit to society, I specifically excluded theoretical and abstract benefits from your answer. You answered with purely abstract and theoretical benefits. You did not successfully answer this question.

    EC. Numbers work the same way whether you’re counting people, poker chips or whatever. I don’t see why you think the question fails. Poker is an excellent example because you’re dealing with a population that grows or shrinks in successive iterations as a function of what happened in the previous iteration, just like populations grow and shrink according to what happens in previous generations. Perhaps you can take a math course?

  3. F.Mudd
    May 18th, 2010 at 12:48 | #3

    Mr. Mudd,
    1. You assert that our population is already increasing. It is. For now. It will not continue forever. But demographic decay is not limited to the West. Non western countries are also experiencing lower birth rates. When you say we should solve the problem by immigration, you realize that you’re condemning the non-western world to the poverty. If they send over their best and brightest workers to pay taxes here, what will become of their home countries? Nothing good.

    Answer: Of course nothing stays the same way forever. And that’s OK.
    As for non-western countries suffering from poverty due to immigration, that is solved by correcting the social ills in that country. In case you didn’t notice, the entire world is suffering from an economic slump. People will move to where there is opportunity if they can do so.
    This silly fear of birth rates is completely gliding over the real problem of vast socioeconomic disparity in the countries you mentioned.

    2. I mentioned nothing about race. You just threw that in there to make me look bad. You made yourself look bad by playing a race card where it was not appropriate. Shame on you.

    Answer: Just because you didn’t yell about race doesn’t mean your statements are not racist. How is it a bad thing if the birth rates of Hispanics or people who practice Islam outpace Whites? Your “studies” focus on White folks.

    3. You seem to be unaware that 1) Latvia and Lithuania are populated almost exclusively by white people. Race does not enter into the equation at all, except for your pathetic attempt to play the race card. 2) That gay rights laws are being rolled back in those countries as their populations decline. See, for instance: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_daring_baltic_ban_on_gay_propaganda/
    Shame on you for playing the race card to cover up your ignorace.

    Answer:
    This is from someone who actually knows what they are talking about:

    Both countries’ economies are trashed. Trying to deal with EU rules and regs, have caused major disruptions. Their factory bases are in shambles, having had little investment or reinvestment in the bases since the USSR collapsed. High fuel costs have been compounded by the EU’s demands that Lithuania shut down its nuclear reactor, which provided energy for the entire country AND for major exports to Latvia, Poland, Russian and elsewhere.

    In response to the falling economies, the middle class faces major unemployment. They are leaving the country by droves, many to UK and Ireland (until now, when those countries also suffer) and often to the US and Canada. The youth is angry, uninvolved,unemployed and sees no hope. Into this mire of Quag, the religious reichists have taken control over the ruling parties (think of the GOP on steroids) and have imposed, not without much dismay and argument, their ideals through legislation. Prayer, Jesus, and conservatism is the rule, not the exception now.

    Their anti-gay movement is based solely on catholic teachings, and their legislation is linked, not to any rational thought, but to hatred, intolerance, and religious brain washing.

    The economic disaster in the Baltics causes fear. Fear causes them to grip religion ever tighter. Religion causes complete and utter pain and suffering for all.

    In short, economic ills. Solve THAT problem and stop talking about the “evils” of gay marriage and birth rate decline.

    4: When I asked about the benefit to society, I specifically excluded theoretical and abstract benefits from your answer. You answered with purely abstract and theoretical benefits. You did not successfully answer this question.

    What, you want hard numbers for the benefit of the freedom to choose your own destiny? So, if being free means slightly less GDP that’s bad?
    Nonsense.

    EC. Numbers work the same way whether you’re counting people, poker chips or whatever. I don’t see why you think the question fails. Poker is an excellent example because you’re dealing with a population that grows or shrinks in successive iterations as a function of what happened in the previous iteration, just like populations grow and shrink according to what happens in previous generations. Perhaps you can take a math course?

    No, measuring population growth/decline is NOT like poker. Population growth/decline deals with millions of factors; mainly the socioeconomic structure of the country as well as internal/external politics.
    Simply talking about folks need to have more kids is silly.

  4. Arlemagne1
    May 18th, 2010 at 14:19 | #4

    1) The most fundamental aspect of any economy is the human capital. Without that, there can be no economy.

    2) Could you please point to a single place in which I am on record as saying that it is bad if hispanic birthrates outpace whites? One place. Can you? Huh? Huh? I didn’t think so, you race card playing ignoramus.

    EC: It doesn’t matter whether it’s poker chips or people who are declining in number, and whether they decline because a pair of aces beats a pair of kings or because people take birth control. The thing that matters is the effect on the next generation as a function of the current generation.

    I don’t have time to refute you further. You have ceased to amuse me. Bye.

  5. fuerte
    May 18th, 2010 at 15:05 | #5

    “Could Dante explain what benefit society would have if we redefined marriage? ”

    Not Dante, but that question is easy. Married people are healthier, more economically productive, and more financially stable than their single counterparts. They’re more likely to save money and plan for the future, less likely to use drugs or drink heavily, less likely to miss work or commit crimes. Obviously, they’re less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior, too, and therefore less likely to contract or spread a sexually transmitted disease.

    This is all intuitive, but it’s also well-documented. I could post links (dozens), but since you blog for the Ruth Institute I doubt you’ll disagree about the benefits of marriage, or have trouble finding corroborating info.

    The benefits of marriage can be seen across racial and socioeconomic lines, and for both couples that have children and those that do not. And there is no reason to believe that these benefits would not also apply to gay couples.

    The social good of these individual benefits ought to be obvious. In fact, there’s a perverse irony in the workings of those social conservative groups* that decry the social costs of “homosexual behavior” (associated with higher depression, promiscuity, STD infection, drug use) and, at the same time, oppose extending to gays an institution that reduces all of those things. (*For the record, I’m not suggesting that the Ruth Institute is one of those groups)

    All that said, F.Mudd is right: you can’t just dismiss equal rights as something airy and abstract. If an injustice is codified into law, you do what’s right and fix that injustice, whether it will add to the GDP or not.

  6. F.Mudd
    May 18th, 2010 at 20:35 | #6

    Arlemagne1 :1) The most fundamental aspect of any economy is the human capital. Without that, there can be no economy.

    Well, then let folks decide how they want to live. Most of this site is dedicated to protecting the institution of marriage from “the gays” when the biggest threats is our socioeconomic structure. When folks have stagnant jobs, poor access to healthcare, and are paying off mountains of debt they tend to not live happy lives and marriages fall apart.

    But keep talking about “the gays” and their hidden agenda.

    2) Could you please point to a single place in which I am on record as saying that it is bad if hispanic birthrates outpace whites? One place. Can you? Huh? Huh? I didn’t think so, you race card playing ignoramus.

    Again, just because you didn’t shout “I’m a racist!” doesn’t mean what you said isn’t racist.

    Here is the definition of racism:

    Source: Racism defined by Princeton

    Noun
    • S: (n) racism (the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races)
    • S: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)

    I bolded the key part. Now, let me show you why what you said is classic racism.

    Two of your questions IN THIS VERY POST state:

    Could Dante Atkins please explain how either population or productivity will increase enough to pay for the benefits we promised to our citizens in their old age?

    People are fighting TO GET IN the United States. You don’t acknowledge this. Plus, the Hispanic community is the fastest growing demographic even without immigration in consideration. You clearly know this via past posts that you wrote but you still ask this question.

    P.S. Discriminatory Behavior. That’d be racism.

    Could he please explain how businesses will remain profitable if there are not enough people born to maintain sufficiently high demand?

    Again, non-whites fill the gap noted here. You know this, yet you still ask this question.

    P.S. Discriminatory Behavior. That’d be racism.

    Also, in your hilariously stupid strategic plan it clearly states:

    Maintain at least a replacement-level birth rate (2.1 births per woman), so that the devastation of a European-style “demographic winter” is avoided

    Hmmmm, European-style “Demographic winter”. Is that the situation where immigrant families are having more children then local families?

    In case you don’t know, worrying about immigrant families having more children than you and setting up an entire organization in part about it would be racism.

    EC: It doesn’t matter whether it’s poker chips or people who are declining in number, and whether they decline because a pair of aces beats a pair of kings or because people take birth control. The thing that matters is the effect on the next generation as a function of the current generation.
    I don’t have time to refute you further. You have ceased to amuse me. Bye.

    Ahhh! The line that interests me is here: The thing that matters is the effect on the next generation as a function of the current generation.

    So, maybe fixing the economy and getting the “current generation” jobs, excellent access to healthcare, and relief for underwater mortgages, among other things we can have a positive effect on the “next generation”.

    Whooaaaa! See what I did there? I thought about actually solving the problem instead of picking a group (i.e. gay folks) and demonizing them.

    But no, the “next generation” is totally doomed because Bob and Billy want something called marriage.

  7. JPiano
    May 19th, 2010 at 10:39 | #7

    There are two points missing here:

    1 – What is the current definition of marriage?
    2 – What are we changing that definition to?

    Let’s start with 2. My guess is that Mudd and Fuerte both mean that marriage should mean any relationship between consenting adults who want to have a union recognized under the law, so that they can receive certain benefits. We’ll get into those benefits in a minute.

    Contrast that with 1., which is a man and a woman who enter into a lifelong union, in most cases with the idea that they will procreate and bear their own natural children. It’s true that many couples divorce, but no one gets married with the idea that they’ll get divorced. People always hope for a lasting marriage. And it’s also true that some couples are childless, but that’s not the norm. Most couples get married wanting children, even if they wait several years into their marriage to conceive.

    Why is marriage protected under the law at all? It’s because we as a society recognize that children, who are small, helpless, and unable to take care or fend for themselves, need to be protected and nurtured. What’s the best way to do that? It’s for them to be raised in a household headed by their two biological parents who are explicitly committed to being together for life – that is, children of an intact marriage.

    Fuerte points out the social science research detailing the benefits of marriage – note that this is marriage in our first definition. An equally well-established corollary is that children of marriage do better, on average, in every possible way – school grades, trouble (or not) with the law, successful marriage and job/career as adults, health as a child and as an adult – than children from any other family form – single parent, step-parents, etc.

    This is why marriage is important in the law – it is the institution that best serves and protects children, and guarantees (to the best of our societal ability) that there will be a next generation of (reasonably) well-adjusted adults (former children) who will continue the society into the future.

    Redefining marriage into proposition 2. serves no societal good. In fact, it is detrimental to society, by enshrining into law family forms that serve children poorly, and lessen the long-term viability of the culture, as it becomes increasingly populated by adults (former children) who are (on average) worse off than their peers of married biological parentage.

    What are the “benefits” parceled out under proposition 2? It’s not entirely clear. Pretty much every “partner benefit” is also available through other legal means (power of attorney, health care proxy, a will, etc.). If the “benefit” is that two people can raise their own non-biological child, that’s probably not a “benefit” to the child in question. The lone statistical exception to this is adoption to a married male/female couple. Why should this be so? Because it is the best approximation of married biological parents.

    A child who suffers the death of a parent is said to have suffered a tragedy. A child of a single mother also suffers the tragedy of an absent father. An orphaned child suffers the double tragedy of the loss of both parents. Since same-sex couples cannot have biological children, a same-sex couple is, by definition, consigning to tragedy whatever children may be adopted or artificially conceived – the tragedy of an absent parent. Even adopted children in perfectly happy families often seek out the biological history – the question “where do I come from?” is one of those central questions of human identity. A person in one of these tragic circumstances is to be comforted, but tragic circumstances are not to be codified into law and encouraged in the culture.

    Despite “equal rights” rhetoric, it is not the rights of adults that marriage primarily is meant to protect. It is the rights of children to grow up with their two loving biological parents, because this is the situation under which they will best flourish. And for the good of society, the law exists to promote this “best case” scenario. Until recently, this was the obvious, well-accepted wisdom of thousands of years of human history, across all historical time and pretty much every culture.

    Just because some people would like to change that, in the name of their own adult “rights”, doesn’t mean that it should be changed. Human nature does not change, even if some people would like to think it so.

  8. Karen Grube
    May 19th, 2010 at 11:44 | #8

    First of all, nowhere has any study ever concluded that gay ‘marriage,’ where it is allowed has reduced STD’s or HIV among the gay community. In fact, the prevailing attitude seems to be that this has no impact because infidelity and multiple partners even among those gay couples who are ‘married’ would appear to be the norm. At least that’s the kind of ‘freedom’ Harvey Milk pushed for. On top of that, gay marriage hasn’t been around long enough in this country, thank God, for there to be any real studies on its long-term effects. So, don’t even think about extrapolating studies on the benefits of marriage that were conducted on heterosexual couples to gay couples. They’re not the same.

    Second, no study has EVER concluded that children do better when they are raised by gay couples. In fact, studies show just the opposite: that children do best when they have both a mom and dad and they are nurtured by both of them.

    Third, NEVER call this push for the acceptance of the gay lifestyle a ‘civil rights’ movement. To say that totally disrespects the very real struggle of Black Americans for the right to vote, the right to own property, and so on. And, it completely ignores the fact that no one has EVER seen a water fountain labeled ‘gays only’ or a restaurant with tables set aside for gays only or a section of a bus where gays were forced to sit while riding. And, more to the point, I have never heard of generations of gays being sold into slavery to slaveowners in this country, or beaten and blasted with water from firehoses for just trying to register to vote. You just don’t get to disrespect the real Civil Rigts movement like that. It’s demeaning and you should be ashamed for even hinting at the comparison.

    F.Mudd is just plain wrong.

  9. fuerte
    May 19th, 2010 at 14:13 | #9

    A couple of things, JPiano:

    1. Regarding your second definition of marriage, “A man and a woman who enter into a lifelong union, in most cases with the idea that they will procreate and bear their own natural children.”

    The problem with that definition starts with “in most cases”. In which “cases,” and for what reasons, do we make exceptions to the rule that married couples should procreate and bear their own natural children? Because we do make exceptions, all the time, and we don’t think of those marriages as damaging the structure of the institution.

    2. You may take this as self-evident, but: “This is why marriage is important in the law – it is the institution that best serves and protects children, and guarantees (to the best of our societal ability) that there will be a next generation of (reasonably) well-adjusted adults (former children) who will continue the society into the future.”

    I agree it’s a good reason for public recognition of marriage, but THE reason? As I’ve said, married couples, even those without children, benefit society. Greatly. And the fact that we recognize those unions—without hesitation—suggests marriage is important in the law for reasons that go beyond procreation.

    3. Finally, I hope this was just loose language on your part—otherwise, I flat out can’t relate to this viewpoint: “Since same-sex couples cannot have biological children, a same-sex couple is, by definition, consigning to tragedy whatever children may be adopted or artificially conceived – the tragedy of an absent parent.”

    A (married) couple of friends of mine recently adopted a son. They would be surprised, I’m sure, to hear that they have consigned the kid to tragedy. I think they would argue that they’re taking a child from a tragic situation and working to make the best life possible for him.

    Karen Grube:

    You’re right that the data on gay marriage and its effects is preliminary. So I would love to see what makes you think infidelity and multiple partners are the norm in gay marriages.

  10. fuerte
    May 20th, 2010 at 16:39 | #10

    More for Karen Grube:

    You said: “First of all, nowhere has any study ever concluded that gay ‘marriage,’ where it is allowed has reduced STD’s or HIV among the gay community.”

    Actually, World Health Organization data paints a pretty clear relationship between legalization of gay marriage and dropping syphilis rates among gay men. (Dee, Thomas S. “Forsaking All Others? The Effects of Same-Sex Partnership Laws on Risky Sex.” The Economic Journal, Vol. 118, No. 530 (2008): 1055-78.) No doubt the longer gay marriage is around, the more evidence we’ll have supporting its beneficial effects.

    Also, regarding your third point: I’m not at all, not for one second, ashamed to call out injustice where I see it, whether that be racial injustice or anti-gay discrimination. The atrocity of one doesn’t make the other less wrong.

  11. JPiano
    May 20th, 2010 at 17:13 | #11

    Dear Fuerte,

    Thanks for your calm and well-considered reply.

    1. The “cases” I had in mind were the cases of older couples who marry, but who are unable to conceive children due to menopause.

    2. Marriage has, in all societies and across all cultures, served as the societal tie that bound men to their women and their children. It is true that marriage has benefits for men and women in the present moment. But I think that the strongest reason society protects marriage is that it ensures that society continues, because of the healthy children that marriages (literally) engender. If there were no children, marriage wouldn’t matter, because society would die out within the next 50 years. Witness the pending demographic decline of Europe’s traditional ethnic populations (Italians, Germans, Swedes, etc.), who have decided that babies are totally optional in marriage. There are few babies – no European nation is reproducing at rates big enough to sustain their cultures – and their cultures will die out, to be replaced by the cultures of the immigrants who are pouring into Europe and reproducing at much higher rates. Children, and therefore the sustaining of society, are THE most important reason that the law should care about marriage. There are no laws about gym memberships or doing your laundry or any other myriad things that benefit individual adults, or adults in relationship. Marriage is a special relationship with particularly profound consequences for the culture.

    3. A child deserves to live with and be loved by his or her two biological married parents. So it is a tragedy any time a child is deprived of that. I had noted, though, that adoption to married opposite-sex parents is the best substitute for one’s own married biological parents. Your friends are to be commended for their choice. They did not consign the child to tragedy – the child’s biological parents did so. Your friends (I have friends who are adoptive parents as well, and I say this about them too) are doing their best to comfort and love the child, as the child deserves, and as all children deserve, and in the single measurably good substitute for traditional marriage.

    4. Regarding your question to Karen Grube: many gay-rights activists point out that “gay marriage” is just a stepping stone on the way to a full cultural embrace of all aspects of the gay lifestyle, including its promiscuity and infidelity. (Indeed, promiscuity and infidelity have already been embraced by large segments of the “hetero” culture as well, particularly among those under 40.) These same proponents readily admit that the definition of “gay marriage” does not include fidelity or permanence. This is a fundamentally different kind of relationship, and simply is not marriage.

  12. Karen Grube
    May 20th, 2010 at 19:26 | #12

    fuerte: I specifically referenced the biography of Harvey Milk where he is reported to have said on many occasions that open relationships should be the norm in the gay community. I’ve heard that touted on several occasions. And have you ever been to or heard about the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco? It is the most disgusting exhibition of simulated as well as unfortunately real gay sex you can imagine happening on the street! In alleys! In front of kids!!! And the illustrious mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, even told the cops not to arrest anyone for having public sex! I’m sorry, but if that’s the kind of behavior this community thinks is acceptable, then that chosen ‘lifestyle’ should never be promoted to young people as normal.

    And YES the injustice of slavery was absolutely different! There is a big different between being born black and choosing the gay lifestyle! HUGE difference. One can choose one’s behavior. One can’t choose the color of one’s skin. The main discrimination I see here in California is against religious leaders and those of faith who choose to disagree with the gay community. They are called bigots and haters and reviled and boycotted or fired from their jobs! THAT’S real discrimination! And it should not be tolerated.

  13. JPiano
    May 21st, 2010 at 17:31 | #13

    Dear Fuerte,

    There is a 2004 study on the stability of same-sex “marriage” in Norway and Sweden. Results:

    - If you’re in a male same-sex marriage, it’s 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than a heterosexual marriage.
    - If you’re in a female same-sex marriage, this figure soars to 167 percent.

    Read the 30-page paper here:
    http://www.uni-koeln.de/wiso-fak/fisoz/conference/papers/p_andersson.pdf

  14. fuerte
    May 22nd, 2010 at 16:54 | #14

    Right, JPiano, I’ve seen that study. It’s contradicted by the most recent data from the Netherlands (the first country to legalize same-sex marriage), which puts the same-sex divorce rate at about the same rate as the straight divorce rate. So make of it what you will.

  15. Karen Grube
    May 23rd, 2010 at 18:05 | #15

    Fuerte . . . Can you provide references to these studies please? I’d love to see it. Somehow I doubt that’s true. But I’m willing to look at any legitimate study you can refer us to.

  16. fuerte
    May 24th, 2010 at 15:15 | #16

    Hi, Karen Grube.

    I posted the citation for the Thomas Dee article on gay marriage’s effect on syphilis, but here it is again:

    Dee, Thomas S. “Forsaking All Others? The Effects of Same-Sex Partnership Laws on Risky Sex.” The Economic Journal, Vol. 118, No. 530 (2008): 1055-78.

    Here’s a link to the abstract: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11327

    Articles this recent are difficult to get online, but here’s a link to a pdf of a working version of the paper:www.lifelube.org/docs/NBER%20w11327%20-%20Dee%20(2005).pdf

    The info from the same-sex divorce rate in the Netherlands comes from the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Netherlands. Here’s a link to the (April 2005) AP release over its findings:

    http://www.news24.com/World/News/Gay-divorce-stats-released-20050404

    Hope that helps.

Comments are closed.