True, they are all clearly well below the replacement level. But as I stated, it is much worse in Italy. If these rates continue, Italy’s decline will spiral down more rapidly and have less of a chance to resolve the issue, than say the Netherlands and UK.

I never suggested banning gay marriage was the answer, I am saying that increasingly liberal attitudes is the reason for both.

It’s hard to say if that is really correct or not. All I can say is a lot of the progressive changes we’ve had improved society, while some have not, and made things worse. So, the question is where does same sex marriage fall here? It seems to me that the declining birth rates are due more to the change from a rural and agricultural society to a more urban and industrial society. This is even happening in developing countries, although the birthrates are still well above the replacement level for now.

should be pretty easy to figure out. gay marriage and civil unions have been the case in MA and other places for some time now, and even longer in europe. is promiscuity decreasing or increasing? are std rates decreasing or increasing?

“Some time now” in this country is really not that long, even in Massachusetts. It will take a couple of generations, at the very least, to see what impact this will have. Almost all of the gay population grew up in a time when having same sex marriage was not even considered a possibility. Further, a majority grew up in environments hostile to homosexuality, be it at school, the playground, peers, and even in their own homes by their own parents. Once gay children and teens have an environment similar enough to their straight peers, with the same goals and expectations, then let’s see what impact it will have in decreasing promiscuity.

As for Europe, it seems like a different ball game there. There seems to be a more accepting attitude of nonmonogamous marriages there, so that it was no problem when some of the leaders, who were married, were open about having mistresses (which was not true with even Bill Clinton). So since there isn’t the best monogamy model in Europe, it wouldn’t surprise me that gay promiscuity would not lessen there. This may be contributing to the problems in Europe now. This has to be worked on for the whole of society in Europe, not just the gay community there.

And the birthrate here is not healthy, it is declinng, it is still above replacement, but not by much and going down.

As long as the birthrate stabilizes, we’ll be okay. Of course, if the trend continues, then we certainly will have a problem as Europe does.

Once again, NDT, you keep repeating this false claim. The fact is we do not know for sure if same sex marriage will decrease gay promiscuity or not.

should be pretty easy to figure out. gay marriage and civil unions have been the case in MA and other places for some time now, and even longer in europe. is promiscuity decreasing or increasing? are std rates decreasing or increasing?

I never suggested banning gay marriage was the answer, I am saying that increasingly liberal attitudes is the reason for both. gay marriage may not be legal in Italy, but Italy nonetheless has been getting more liberal in their attitudes about marriage.

And the birthrate here is not healthy, it is declinng, it is still above replacement, but not by much and going down.

AmericanElephant, maybe so. What’s interesting is that the Netherlands has one of the higher birth rates in Europe, while Italy, who doesn’t appear to be heading towards same sex marriage soon (as far as I know) has one of the lowest rates in Europe. Further, Italy appears to be holding more onto the traditional roles in marriage more so than the other European nations, and people are still getting married. They’re just having a lot less children now. And despite more and more states either having civil unions or same sex marriage, the birth rate is still pretty healthy here.

We do agree that this is a problem in Europe. The low birthrate and the increase of intolerant Muslims are two issues to be very concerned about. So something should be done to solve these problems. I just don’t see how banning or preventing same sex marriage will accomplish this. Of course, if the European native population continues to decrease and Muslim immigrants and their descendants increase, then same sex marriage in Europe will undoubtedly end.

as we’ve seen, having gay marriage does nothing to stop gay promiscuity,

Once again, NDT, you keep repeating this false claim. The fact is we do not know for sure if same sex marriage will decrease gay promiscuity or not.

and in fact, produces the spectacle of “married” gays arguing that their promiscuity is somehow justified because “men are pigs”.

Here we go with the “proof” by example bit. We see the spectacle of so many heterosexual marriages, but no one here is calling an end to marriage. Yes, there are certainly examples of same sex marriages only lasting as long as two of Britney Spears’ marriages or four of Zsa Zsa Gabor’s marriages (or should I put the scare quotes in and write “marriages”?). It’s just not a justification of barring same sex marriage.

The same attitudinal changes towards marriage and the nuclear family that you herald because they mean approval of gay marriage are the very same attitudinal changes that have already taken hold in Europe, where Europeans aren’t even replacing themselves.

Europe is dying. That is a fact. Native Europeans grow less in number every year while Muslims who reject eurpean culture and values will be the majority within a few decades. Piglet is banned from libraries, divorce law already accomodates polygamy — european culture is already giving way to muslim culture, and it will only accelerate as the muslim population continues to grow.

Is all this happening because europe embraces gay marriage? No. But Europe embraces gay marriage because they have abandoned important values about marriage and family.

It is no coincidence that the more America follows the same change in attitudes about marriage and family, the more our marriage rates also decline, the more our birth rates decline, and the more acceptance gay marriage gains.

They are all part and parcel of the same shifts in attitude about marriage and family. Marriage matters.

NDT is absolutely right, ideals don’t come from law, rather law reflects ideals. But it can also encourage and support ideals. Unfortunately, what we have is a society that is forgetting why the ideals exist in the first place, and gay marriage is the beneficiary. The overall effect, however, is detrimental to society.

Its not that heterosexuals need to think that their relationships are better, its that society as a whole needs to remember that they are better. What America needs, if it does not want to decline and disappear right along with Europe, is to reverse these attitudinal changes, not to exacerbate them.

Could gay marriage be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem? I wish it could, but I dont see how it is even remotely possible when what is needed are more conservative values about marriage and family, and what gays offer instead are values about marriage that are even farther to the left than where we already are.

That, I think, we can agree upon.

Problem is, though, ideals don’t come from law; they come from culture, and right now, gay culture encourages and supports promiscuity, sexual irresponsibility, and non-commitment. Furthermore, despite the attempt by some gays to argue that the “new” generation” is more responsible, that is belied by the evidence.

The number of young homosexual men being newly diagnosed with HIV infection is rising by 12 percent a year, with the steepest upward trend in young black men, according to a new report.

The double-digit increase in young gay men is about 10 times higher than in the homosexual community overall, where the number of new infections is going up about 1.5 percent a year.

Until that ideal is changed, putting an institution in place is meaningless; as we’ve seen, having gay marriage does nothing to stop gay promiscuity, and in fact, produces the spectacle of “married” gays arguing that their promiscuity is somehow justified because “men are pigs”.

It may be a return to medieval (pre-13th century) Western practice where gay couples could be joined in fraternal unions that resembled marriage in much of their symbolism and intent (Boswell). Which practice, BTW, is why I don’t care if we end up calling gay marriage “civil unions” or having it separate from straight marriage. If heterosexuals need to feel that their unions are somehow different and extra special (even though some gay unions raise kids) – fine, “whatev”. I just think Western civilization should go back to having *some* institutional path/ideal in place for gay couples. No path / gay promiscuity has been a disaster.

I never claimed it was the end of the world, I claimed it was the end of a civilization.

Was my comment directed to you, AE? I wasn’t aware of that. I hadn’t even read your comments yet (and still haven’t, beyond the above lead – I am at a conference, only checking in a couple minutes per day).

It is not the end of the world. It is not the end of Western society.

I never claimed it was the end of the world, I claimed it was the end of a civilization. You ought to read Londonistan by Melanie Griffiths. I wonder what you call it when a society isn’t replacing itself and is instead rapidly being replaced by a population that rejects that society’s values and culture? Positive social change?

And I disagree that the social changes have already happened in America. I think the reason most Americans still oppose gay marriage, and they do, is because that culture war is still raging in America, and so far, the side that separates marriage from procreation hasn’t won. When gay marriage is accepted, that is when they will have won. And it won’t be a positive development for society.

It is when society accepts the idea that the purpose of marriage has to do with the whims of adults, and not with reproduction, family and the best interests of children and society that gay marriage becomes acceptable.

And lets do away with this ridiculous idea that marriage has anything to do with taking care of one another while we’re at it. If that were the case, there would be no divorce. If that were the case, we wouldnt be subsidizing marriage, after all two people are supposedly agreeing to take care of one another so society doesnt have to. And yet here we are still paying them. And who takes care of the survivor when one dies? Society. So please explain to me where the savings is when we pay you to take care of one another and then we pay to take care of the survivor? And for the 400th time, why is it that no legislature in the country has said that the purpose of marriage is for people to take care of one another? Because its a lie that proponents of gay marriage have pulled completely out of their asses.

But back on topic, it is no coincidence that as these attitudes are changing in America, reproduction rates are falling, just as they have already done in Europe.

Should we celebrate the acceptance of gay marriage as a result of detrimental changes in attitudes towards marriage? Much like celebrating that there is finally an open deck chair on the Titanic if you ask me.

I have a better idea. How about we value the nuclear family again and reassert that it is indeed the ideal instead of trying to falsely pretend that it is no better than any other number of choices.

I also think gay marriage reflects major changes that have already taken place in the institution of marriage: namely, no-fault divorce, which changed the definition of marriage, making it less religious and less about procreation, and more about 2 people caring for each other.

While gay marriage obviously is *a* change to the definition of marriage, and I would not claim otherwise, I argue with the superlatives applied, like “fundamental” change, “huge” change, or even “significant” change. It is none of those things, because, again, the significant changes – which are real – have *already* taken place.

Gay marriage is a minor change to the definition of marriage that impacts (positively) a minority of approximately 5% the population. It is not the end of the world. It is not the end of Western society. It is not the end of marriage. And it is a relatively small change to the legal structure of marriage. (Polygamy, which gay marriage neither hinders nor helps, would be the big change there.)

Comment by Sean A — July 2, 2008 @ 5:01 am – July 2, 2008

You, sir, are my hero.

good grief, is the only thing you can blab about is the is the inequality of the social stucture in america, whilst famine, poverty and unjustice inflict itself upon a good part of the rest of the world

Yes, by all means, we should instead be talking about cutting back on energy use, cutting back on consumption, buying locally, blocking the south american free trade agreement, nixing the north american free trade agreement, and all the other liberal policies that increase world famine, poverty, and injustice.

We see the result of these changing attitudes in Europe where the same attitudes are more advanced.

But Europe is dying. Europeans are not even replacing themselves; the only population growth is coming through immigration. It is estimated that in a few decades, the majority of Europe will be Muslim. European culture is already giving way to Islamic culture in many respects, this will only accelerate as the Muslim population grows.

Is gay marriage to blame for the death of Europe? Of course not, but rather it is a symptom of it. The more people lose sight of what marriage is about in the first place, the more accepting they are of gay marriage.

First in Europe, and now in America an increasing number of people are separating the institution of marriage from procreation. Why should they think of marriage in terms of children? People don’t need children to take care of them anymore — they have the state for that! But of course the state needs children to take care of adults whether the adults recognize it or not.

What same sex marriage advocates like Sullivan and Rauch and people in these comments advocate is exacerbating this problem. “Marriage has changed,” they say. It should be about “love” and “taking care of one another” they say — that’s precisely the way they have come to feel about marriage in Europe.

But since when is the death of an entire civilization “social progress”?

There is an old story about a famous food company that was test marketing dog food. They hired the best package designers. They hired the best dog nutritionists. They hired the best advertising agency to promote it. The product flopped. The dogs wouldn’t eat it.

While same sex marriage might be wanted by some, preliminary data indicates that like most marriages, it is favored by women. It is 5% of 5% that appears to want and partake of this new, wonderful institution.

I don’t think that the dogs really like it.