Wednesday, November 07, 2012

On the 2012 ballot initiatives

As an addendum to the previous post, a few remarks about the various ballot initiatives up for electoral consideration yesterday:

- If Hispanics are naturally traditionally-oriented, family-values conservatives, why did they back Colorado's Amendment 64 to legalize recreational marijuana usage 70%-30%, while Coloradan whites--a fairly liberal bunch--split 50%-50% on the issue?

- Younger Americans are more skeptical about a further socialization of health care in the US than older generations are, a notable departure from the general trend in which youth and affinity for socialism tend to go hand-in-hand. In Florida, voters under 30 voted in favor of Amendment 1, which would've prohibited individuals and businesses from being mandated to participate in any health care system, 55%-45%. All other age groups shot it down, with those 65 and older doing so 41%-59%. Spare me the nonsense about the elderly wanting to ensure the nation they've left to the rest of us is fiscally sound--everybody wants to stick their noses in the public trough, ancients included.

- The rapidity with which public opinion has shifted on same-sex marriage is remarkable. When the GSS asked respondents if those of the same sex should be allowed to marry one another, only 11% answered in the affirmative. Today, that is the majority position. No longer are besieged traditionalists on the losing side of history even able to claim that whenever it's put to the public, the public rejects same-sex marriage, and it's only through judicial fiat or by way of furtive legislative action that it is allowed. Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota all voted in favor of it. Results from Washington are still being processed, but at the moment it looks like it'll be legalized there as well.

Parenthetically, in all four states, men voted against and women voted for legalizing same-sex marriage. I wonder if running on a platform to repeal the 19th Amendment would be viable? Keep the 15th, though--blacks rejected same-sex marriage in Maryland (and likely the other three as well, though sample sizes were too small to be included in exit polls from those states).

- While the presidential exit polls broke out the voting behaviors of those married with children from the rest of the electorate, polling on the ballot measures over marijuana legalization did not. As education and income rise, support for legalization does as well, even as personal use of it declines. It's always easier to approve of self-destructive behaviors in the abstract than it is when one feels their consequences firsthand. I suspect those with kids are less supportive of legalization than singles and the childless married are.

GSS variables used: MARHOMO, YEAR(1988)

29 comments:

asdf said...

Ironically, being around gays (lived in NYC, was in the village for two gay pride parades now - not participating just coincidence) has actually decreased my support for gay marriage.

What is lost in all this is that the gay community, by and large, has really shitty values. Its a lot of gaudy promiscuous sex. Not a lot of lifelong loving monogamy. The gay pride parade itself is a microcosm. They aren't marching to show how normal they are and how much they want to belong. They dress up and act like perverts for all to see.

My problem with gay marriage is most gays don't want to marry, and the gay lifestyle is a very dangerous lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

I agree completely with asdf.

It has nothing to do with hate. If women decided that marriage should be between them and pizza, we'd end up with lard buckets slathered in tomato sauce dancing down the street, banging a pepperoni

Dan said...

To me the gay marriage thing shows the absolute power of the liberal media, liberal entertainment and the liberal university establishment to literally create any belief right out of thin air and have everyone believe it.

It almost seems like the best thing for conservatives is just to exit the stage. Conservatives adopt a position based on natural principle and then liberals demolish that position just for sport. In this way conservatives are merely marking things that liberals should destroy.

If conservatives had felt it imperative in the 1980s or early 1990s to redefine marriage to include gays so that those pervs could get monogamous and stop spreading all their ghastly diseases, you can bet that talk of gay marriage would be hate speech today.

Dan said...

If conservatives are vanquished it does not mean that conservative ideals are crushed. Some things about modern liberals would make an old southern segregationist blush.

Consider:
* Left wing silicon valley employs almost no blacks or hispanics and gets away with it.

* NYPD brutally keeps law and order and profiles like crazy without consequence.

* Liberal cities are absolutely sharply segregated in America.

* Liberals are super status conscious and the Democratic party is far more unequal than the Republican party.

* Good liberals dominate zoning boards where they exert ferocious elitism.

On the other hand, will minorities turn against liberal whites in the high-lo coalition once the big bad Republicans are vanquished?

Dan said...

I think Romney did pretty well considering how the media has dropped any pretense of honest reporting that would hurt the liberal cause. Considering the completeness of the liberal domination of media, entertainment and university and the fact that no facts adverse to the liberal cause are allowed to be reported, it is amazing that Romney had any shot at all.

Dan said...

It is absurd that someone like Candy Crowley should even be allowed to be the moderator for a presidential debate given that she might as well be part of Obama's campaign staff.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/11/CNN-s-Crowley-Romney-Ryan-is-a-Ticket-Death-Wish

The media has really just gone off the rails in the last few years. Dan Rather used a fabricated story and was gone but would he have been ousted today?

Audacious Epigone said...

If conservatives had felt it imperative in the 1980s or early 1990s to redefine marriage to include gays so that those pervs could get monogamous and stop spreading all their ghastly diseases, you can bet that talk of gay marriage would be hate speech today.

Fascinating thought, thanks.

Anonymous said...


- The rapidity with which public opinion has shifted on same-sex marriage is remarkable. When the GSS asked respondents if those of the same sex should be allowed to marry one another, only 11% answered in the affirmative.


I think the media elites pushed this super hard to test how much power they actually have. I mean it is an extremely inconsequential issue, but very clearly illustrates the pattern and method of manufacturing consent among the governor. It is really a thing to behold. It makes me want to write a book on it.

JayMan said...

@asdf:

What is lost in all this is that the gay community, by and large, has really shitty values. Its a lot of gaudy promiscuous sex. Not a lot of lifelong loving monogamy. The gay pride parade itself is a microcosm. They aren't marching to show how normal they are and how much they want to belong. They dress up and act like perverts for all to see.

What's the alternative? Gays will continue to do this even if they can get married or not.

Besides, if homosexuality is at all heritable, then encouraging gays to live the gay lifestyle will, in time, lead to far fewer gays. Though this will take a long while, it will be the trend.

However, not so much if it's caused by an infection.

Anonymous said...

However, not so much if it's caused by an infection.


Wouldn't that depend on the kind of infection and how it worked to manifest the effect of same sex attraction?

Anonymous said...

How about this ballot initiative:

The IRS in cooperation with the US Census bureau shall collect data on the race of all persons submitting income tax filings. The Census bureau shall include in the American Community Survey a report of the racial demographics and the amount of tax paid by the different groups as reported by the IRS.

asdf said...

JayMan,

What's missing from your analysis is that gay and straight aren't black and white either/or propositions. Many people fall on a spectrum and could lean either way based on social pressure. I think there is a danger is bisexual people falling into the gay lifestyle.

Also, gays don't have to act how they act. With proper social pressure you could get them to act more like normal people. However, you would have to stop celebrating gay culture as is done in the media. Social shame is amazingly effective at getting good behavior out of people, but you actually have to belief there is such a thing as good and bad behavior.

I agree there needs to be some mechanism for bringing gays on board with society. To the extent allowing them to marry does that I'm in favor. But gay marriage isn't about gay rights or allowing them to be more mainstream. It's a proxy for gay acceptance. And given the current state of the gay community I think it's a bad idea to be accepting that.

JayMan said...

@asdf:

Evidence shows that the distribution of sexual orientation in men is J-shaped: most men, if they are not straight, are gay. There are proportionally few bisexual men. "Shaming" will only put gays back into the closet. But, that it a futile hope: it is simply not going to happen. All evidence shows that the fraction of men identifying as gay is steadily declining, even with more societal tolerance of homosexuality. Your worries about gay acceptance leading to more gays is unfounded in any objective sense.

It seems to me that objection to gay marriage is less about an objective problem this raises and more about one's personal distaste for gays. Which in itself is fascinating for its own reasons.

JayMan said...

@Anon:

Wouldn't that depend on the kind of infection and how it worked to manifest the effect of same sex attraction?

Yes. See here.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, being around gays (lived in NYC, was in the village for two gay pride parades now - not participating just coincidence) has actually decreased my support for gay marriage


Agreed. If all I knew about gays was from the gauzy depictions of them in the media, I'd have a much higher opinion of them. The more people know about gays, the less they like them.

I suspect there's a lot of women who grew up watching Willow on "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" for whom opposition to gay marriage is just unthinkable.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that objection to gay marriage is less about an objective problem this raises and more about one's personal distaste for gays.


The first impulse of the liberal is always to treat disagreement with liberalism is a form of mental illness which needs to be diagnosed and treated.

Anonymous said...



The first impulse of the liberal is always to treat disagreement with liberalism is a form of mental illness which needs to be diagnosed and treated.



Exactly. Longstanding effective strategies are simply discarded and stupid ones given the a priori status of superiority. Like women's suffrage. Men of the west had managed to establish an incredibly advanced civilization without women's 2¢ at the ballot box. I mean, the theory of relativity was published before women got the vote in the US.

asdf said...

JayMan,

You are totally misunderstanding.

"Shaming will only put gays back into the closet."

I am NOT talking about shaming people for being genetically gay. I'm talking about shaming people for acting like a bunch of fucked up perverts. I'm talking about shaming the gay community for the way it acts. The way it acts goes far beyond dudes sticking it in other dudes.

I have read your research on gay genes declining because gays no longer get fake wives. That is not the issue I'm talking about. They can identify as gay and not have any children, great.

My problem isn't that they identify as gay, but that the gay identity is a bad identity. It's an identity that is leading to all kinds of problems.

Anonymous said...

Maybe nicer gays will want to go back in the closet due to the bad public behavior of some of them. Who knows maybe the nicer ones themselves may even start shaming the obnoxious ones.

JayMan said...

@asdf:

My problem isn't that they identify as gay, but that the gay identity is a bad identity. It's an identity that is leading to all kinds of problems.

Such as?

JayMan said...

@A"It seems to me that objection to gay marriage is less about an objective problem this raises and more about one's personal distaste for gays."


The first impulse of the liberal is always to treat disagreement with liberalism is a form of mental illness which needs to be diagnosed and treated.


That's not at all what I said.

asdf said...

Jayman,

Such as everything I was talking about. The gay pride parade is a microcosm of the gay communities day to day live. Perversion. Drug use. Complete lack of shame or modesty. Low impulse control. Desire to be all up in everyone's face. A variety of psychological issues.

There was a commentator on Half Sigma's site, I think it was Matt in RTP but it might have been someone else, who was a male stripper and spent a lot of time in the gay community and came away with a very negative impression of gay life. I think he's pretty accurate in the stuff he's posted. You might say oh he's a stripper its biased, but my time in NYC gave me a similar impression and I wasn't a stripper.

If a group of straight people did what they do in the gay pride parade we would properly call them shameless nuisances.

Testy said...

I really don't see any point to allowing gay marriage. Marriage is a complex thing, but it largely seeks to prevent polygamy and to ensure that society propagates into the future (by ensuring a relatively stable and successful family). The idea that marriage is about "love" is entirely ahistorical.

Most people agree that our government should provide benefits to citizens who serve society in the Armed Forces (e.g. GI Bill, Veterans services, social status). Having marriage be a separate status, with its own benefits, for reproductive couples is no different. Unfortunately women have so fallen for the idea that marriage is purely for love (an idea that, not-coincidentally, has led to increased divorce as well) that they are unwilling to entertain the myriad social functions marriage has outside of that.

Anonymous said...

That's not at all what I said.


It sure looked like you were saying that objections to gay marriage are rooted in the "personal distaste" people have for gays - probably because that is exactly what you said. And you certainly strongly implied that such people just need to get over their irrational, non-objective personal feelings.

Fun said...

The "gay culture is bad so gay marriage is bad" argument doesn't work for me. If some gays choose to be more mainstream, more monogamous, more responsible and more publicly committed, let them. Legitimize them. Given that gays are out of the closet, traditional norms about marriage being a social obligation are gone for good and the fact that stable marriage is determined by assortative mating more than anything... why not?

The argument is like claiming that because black culture is so dysfunctional allowing them to marry would destroy the institution. If real life what happens is those who are most unsuited for marriage won't get married in the first place. Those who are stay married. If you believe in HBD, your efforts are better focused on getting the former group to stop having children altogether and wasted on attempts to reimpose traditional norms.

asdf said...

Fun,

The most legitimate argument for gay marriage is that it will normalize gays, but I don't buy it. If that was the argument liberals would be against it hard (because it establishes something as normal or better). Jayman himself isn't big on marriage, he is pro gay marriage because it raises the status of gays (and lowers the status of normalcy) not because he wants to share the sacrament of marriage with them.

Gay marriage is a proxy for gay status. By approving gay marriage we are approving of the gay community. Marriage is just a stand in for societal status.

I'm not sure what the gay community has done to earn that status (besides make it big in Hollywood and promote themselves).

FredR said...

I agree with asdf. Gay marriage is like affirmative action.

Fun said...

I'm not sure what the gay community has done to earn that status

Gay marriage is like affirmative action.

Marriage does not have merit-based admittance. Are a you a man or a woman intending to marry the opposite sex? Congratulations, you're in. Literally that's it. Loyalty, responsibility, commitment, "family values", nor any other qualities associated with married life are tested for, and in fact may be absent. Individuals prove they are worthy of the institution after the fact.

So again. Why not?

JayMan said...

@Anonymous 11/12/12 3:27 PM

"It sure looked like you were saying that objections to gay marriage are rooted in the "personal distaste" people have for gays - probably because that is exactly what you said."

It is what I said. For it is indeed the case.

"And you certainly strongly implied that such people just need to get over their irrational, non-objective personal feelings."

It's always better to criticize what someone for what he did say instead of what he did not say. I of all people surely wouldn't recommend that people simply "get over" their irrational biases, because I know that it's not quite that easy.

That said, I have no problem pointing out when said views are irrational.