It’s good that you classify this as for “beliefs of the form ‘policy X will result in outcome Y’)”. That may be answerable. Much political discussion and dispute is more about relative preferences and goals than matters of fact. For example, gay marriage. Few people honestly dispute any matter of fact in the gay marriage debate, nor would many people’s minds be changed by learning they were wrong on a matter of fact. It’s an argument about values and preferences.
I’ve seen a number of disputes of fact on this matter. It’s likely that these aren’t usually true rejections of gay marriage, but I doubt all the people who express these concerns are straight-out lying. This article seems sincere for example.
People agree that gay marriage will increase the number of same-sex couples raising children. Is having a pair of opposite-sex caretakers crucial for a child’s well-being?
Will allowing gay marriage increase the prevalence of open marriages?
Will allowing gay marriage increase STD prevalence?
Will allowing gay marriage decrease the rate of marriage overall?
Yes, there are disputes of fact; but these questions aren’t why people support or oppose gay marriage. A conclusive answer on any or all of these questions would be unlikely to sway many people on either side of the issue.
I agree that this probably isn’t straight-out lying, in that someone who asks (e.g.) “Will allowing gay marriage decrease the rate of marriage overall?” probably isn’t thinking “Of course allowing gay marriage isn’t likely to decrease the rate of marriage overall… honestly, how many people will refuse to get married simply because a gay couple down the block is getting married? But if I ask the question, people will start to think that it will, because people are easy to manipulate that way.”
Of course allowing gay marriage isn’t likely to decrease the rate of marriage overall… honestly, how many people will refuse to get married simply because a gay couple down the block is getting married?
Yes, when you only consider the most straight forward causal path, of course, it seems absurd. (Incidentally, the problem with attempting to think of politics in utilitarian terms is that it makes it easy to make these kind of mistakes.) The causal path is about undermining the Schelling points on which marriage is based.
The reason the institution of marriage developed in the first place is that it’s a effective institution for raising children. Gay marriage is a part of a modern tendency to neglect this aspect of marriage.
The institution of monogamous marriage appears to be a corruption of the older, more reproductively productive institution of polygyny by successful males. Why favor the middle-aged institution over the ancient?
The institution of monogamous marriage appears to be a corruption of the older, more reproductively productive institution of polygyny by successful males.
This type of polygyny wasn’t nearly as widespread as you seem to think. In any case monogamous marriage has been around long enough that we can see that it works. The same isn’t at all clear for what modern marriage is turning into.
I’m talking prehistoric here; we have evidence to suggest that raiding for females was a regular feature of human culture for most of our species’ existence (discussed in this book.)
In any case, the modern, marry-for-love tradition, as opposed to marriage for political or economic expediency, is recent enough as to be practically untested in historical terms. It would be disingenuous to pretend that reverting to the institution of eighty years ago is in any way a return to a time-tested standard.
I’m talking prehistoric here; we have evidence to suggest that raiding for females was a regular feature of human culture for most of our species’ existence
This was that big an effect in practice, i.e., the average woman was not taken as a captive during her lifetime. War is negative sum and for all their glorification of war, even aggressive societies spent most of their energies on productive activities.
In any case, the modern, marry-for-love tradition, as opposed to marriage for political or economic expediency,
What would I expect to see if I thought about the issue properly in terms of the Schelling points on which marriage is based?
For example, would I expect to see a detectable decrease in the rate at which people get married overall in jurisdictions that legalize same-sex marriage relative to jurisdictions that don’t? Would I expect to see a detectable increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock childbirths in these jurisdictions?
Would I expect to see a more general decrease across jurisdictions, with the rate of decrease proportional to the number of such jurisdictions at any given time?
There are a lot of people who see marriage as “just a piece of paper.” I happen to be one of them :) And it wouldn’t be totally implausible for this number to increase as a result of allowing gay marriage, though I wouldn’t personally expect it to.
If the law would be unable to stop or punish you (just as it today can’t stop two unmarried people from living together), then unlicensed drivers would gradually become accepted as a fact.
On the other hand, if in a country people could be punished for living together while not being married, and if most people would agree with such laws, then marriage would be treated more seriously than a driver’s license.
It’s good that you classify this as for “beliefs of the form ‘policy X will result in outcome Y’)”. That may be answerable. Much political discussion and dispute is more about relative preferences and goals than matters of fact. For example, gay marriage. Few people honestly dispute any matter of fact in the gay marriage debate, nor would many people’s minds be changed by learning they were wrong on a matter of fact. It’s an argument about values and preferences.
I’ve seen a number of disputes of fact on this matter. It’s likely that these aren’t usually true rejections of gay marriage, but I doubt all the people who express these concerns are straight-out lying. This article seems sincere for example.
People agree that gay marriage will increase the number of same-sex couples raising children. Is having a pair of opposite-sex caretakers crucial for a child’s well-being?
Will allowing gay marriage increase the prevalence of open marriages?
Will allowing gay marriage increase STD prevalence?
Will allowing gay marriage decrease the rate of marriage overall?
Yes, there are disputes of fact; but these questions aren’t why people support or oppose gay marriage. A conclusive answer on any or all of these questions would be unlikely to sway many people on either side of the issue.
I agree that this probably isn’t straight-out lying, in that someone who asks (e.g.) “Will allowing gay marriage decrease the rate of marriage overall?” probably isn’t thinking “Of course allowing gay marriage isn’t likely to decrease the rate of marriage overall… honestly, how many people will refuse to get married simply because a gay couple down the block is getting married? But if I ask the question, people will start to think that it will, because people are easy to manipulate that way.”
Yes, when you only consider the most straight forward causal path, of course, it seems absurd. (Incidentally, the problem with attempting to think of politics in utilitarian terms is that it makes it easy to make these kind of mistakes.) The causal path is about undermining the Schelling points on which marriage is based.
The reason the institution of marriage developed in the first place is that it’s a effective institution for raising children. Gay marriage is a part of a modern tendency to neglect this aspect of marriage.
The institution of monogamous marriage appears to be a corruption of the older, more reproductively productive institution of polygyny by successful males. Why favor the middle-aged institution over the ancient?
This type of polygyny wasn’t nearly as widespread as you seem to think. In any case monogamous marriage has been around long enough that we can see that it works. The same isn’t at all clear for what modern marriage is turning into.
I’m talking prehistoric here; we have evidence to suggest that raiding for females was a regular feature of human culture for most of our species’ existence (discussed in this book.)
In any case, the modern, marry-for-love tradition, as opposed to marriage for political or economic expediency, is recent enough as to be practically untested in historical terms. It would be disingenuous to pretend that reverting to the institution of eighty years ago is in any way a return to a time-tested standard.
This was that big an effect in practice, i.e., the average woman was not taken as a captive during her lifetime. War is negative sum and for all their glorification of war, even aggressive societies spent most of their energies on productive activities.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
What would I expect to see if I thought about the issue properly in terms of the Schelling points on which marriage is based?
For example, would I expect to see a detectable decrease in the rate at which people get married overall in jurisdictions that legalize same-sex marriage relative to jurisdictions that don’t? Would I expect to see a detectable increase in the rate of out-of-wedlock childbirths in these jurisdictions?
Would I expect to see a more general decrease across jurisdictions, with the rate of decrease proportional to the number of such jurisdictions at any given time?
Something else?
There are a lot of people who see marriage as “just a piece of paper.” I happen to be one of them :) And it wouldn’t be totally implausible for this number to increase as a result of allowing gay marriage, though I wouldn’t personally expect it to.
If a marriage is just a piece of paper, then so is a driver’s license, a dollar bill, an apartment lease, a sales receipt, and a passport.
By your analogy, driving a lot without a license will get you recognized by the state as a common-law driver.
If the law would be unable to stop or punish you (just as it today can’t stop two unmarried people from living together), then unlicensed drivers would gradually become accepted as a fact.
On the other hand, if in a country people could be punished for living together while not being married, and if most people would agree with such laws, then marriage would be treated more seriously than a driver’s license.