No.And I don't think anyone else can.The basic assumption that the poster seems to have made appears to be that marriage is so rare and unfamiliar a concept among ethnic minority groups (particularly among black Americans) that with the ultimate success of equal marriage, the idea of marriage will be so associated with gays that ethnic (esp. black) males will abandon marriage even more, leading to even greater rates of single parent (mother-only) families and the decline of Western Civilization (which, to be fair, Gandhi did say would be a good idea--western civilization, not its decline). And, presumably, though not stated, this will result in the terminal gayification of ethnic minority groups.Apparently kids growing up in fatherless households because their fathers get killed or come home mentally and emotionally crippled from Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't cause such things--but I digress.(and the word verification is "adonica"--proof that the internet is run by trickster gods...)
I can explain!The author has put forth an explanation for black/white differences in achievement that rests on differences in occurrence single-parent families, an explanation that was in vogue for awhile in some social science circles but doesn't really seem to be strongly supported by actual analysis. The author then goes on to argue that allowing more people to get married will cause fewer black men to get married. She finally concludes that gays don't need marriage because they already have civil unions (really? everywhere in the country? with the same rights as marriage? because that'd be awesome!) and this issue should be about the fate of unfathered black men not gay rights anyway.In short, it's an argument not based on much actual empirical evidence that makes a couple of really huge leaps in logic in describing possible effects of changes in policy and then goes on to argue that really we should decide policies about apples based on their effects on oranges.
Sorry, CC, I too am at a loss.
It depends what you mean by "explain".
I can explain!I went to high school and college with Heather.She was a sweet, somewhat ethereal, blonde California girl from Laguna Niguel. Her high school portrait was a soft-focus job in a peasant blouse in a field of daisies. IIRC she was an English major in college. My dad wanted me to date her because she was Scottish and wicked smart. (Kinda like him. He still asks about her when I come home from reunions. One year I even sent him a book of her essays for Christmas.)The we graduated, Reagan was elected, she went off to law school, and soehow she fell under the influence of the Dark Side of the Force. It's like Anakin Skywalker, but with daisies and no Luke. She's still there.
Well, my experience is single working moms carry a big burden, and our culture doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for them. Their situation hardly an African American thing. It touches many, it's the greatest fear I have for my daughters.When my Father-in-Law said he hoped my girls would "meet a good man", I said I don't want them to count on a man for sure. Odds are against them, and they better have good skill sets to support themselves. They better not count on marriage.I lived in Oak Park, Illinois in the 80's and 90s. An "integrated" Village with Illinois's largest GLBT commuity on a per capita basis.The divide between Male Gay Couples who dominated local politics and single working Moms was pretty stark, and not a whole lot of sympathy expressed by either side from my experiences. I suspect that's the divide the author attempting to exploit here. It's not hard.Mayor Daley's response to SSM opponents was America is not threatened by SSM, it's threatened by divorce --or no marriage at all: formal or informal-- and the resulting Single Working Mom Households it creates.He had a point and the trends only worsened since. Families are looking very different and what the future holds I don't know. I see few UUs thinking or talking about it though... we're stuck in our SSM slogans on equality while reality is very different.
Well, CC, you're the law student: you should be able to explain illogical arguments better than the rest of us. :-)Did you notice that embedded in that post were these two gems:She assumed that gays don't have children. And she said black crime causes black poverty (as opposed to the other way around which makes more sense.)“…any violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black perp than by a white one. This crime gap results in depressed urban economies,…” “Or if someone can guarantee that widespread gay marriage would not further erode the expectation among blacks that marriage is the proper context for raising children, I would also not worry.” “It erases completely the significance that marriage is THE context in which the children of biological parents should be raised.”
Convoluted logic is all I can say.
I have had multiple discussions with Republicans trying to grasp this whole "letting gay people marry will devalue marriage for some straight people on the margins who will now not get married or will treat marriage less seriously." All of them say it's true. None of them has been able to find me a single example of an actual human being who believes this stuff. You'll notice that MacDonald Others the crap out of this argument: she isn't saying she would devalue marriage if there were SSM, but those criminally-inclined, baby-abandoning, low-achieving black men would. She, a blond upper class woman with a JD knows this. Did she interview any actual black men for her piece? Uh, no, but as an upper class white person, she knows everything about everyone without having to, you know, talk to them.What a f*ckwit.
Post a Comment