Gay marriage and probabilities Gay marriage, states of the worl - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

pelagius · 08-27-2008, 06:50 PM

First, let me state that I really am just not that interested in the gay marriage debate. However, I think I have been called out by Waters at least 8 times to respond to his response to “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” Consequently, I thought I would write down a few thoughts. This is not, however, a response to Waters' response.

As near as I can tell, at the heart of “The Divine Institution of Marriage” is the argument that if gay marriage is allowed then society will be worse in same way. The document then goes on to outline some possible outcomes or states of the world in which society would be worse off. So that generally places the argument in the realm of how does gay marriage affect overall welfare. Is it welfare decreasing or is it welfare increasing in aggregate? Also, I near as I can tell most of the critical responses (besides sniping about language or that they document is derivative of other thought, etc, etc) to the list advanced in the document is the possible costs raised by the document are pretty small in magnitude at best or even if the supposed costs are big in some cases those cases are very unlikely. However, in my view a list of possible bad things should not be dismissed just because the expected costs are small or because a "bad" state of the world has an extremely small probability of occur. It really depends on the magnitude of the expected benefit. If the expected benefit is relatively small then even if the "bad things" that have expected costs or small probability of occurring it may still be enough to oppose gay marriage.

How could we calculate the benefit of gay marriage to society? Well, conceptually its pretty easy. Just make a market for gay marriage. You have two goods that are substitutes but not perfect substitutes: gay marriage and civil unions (I believe this is the most relevant substitute good in the California debate over prop 8). So find the representative gay couple and find out what point they become indifferent between paying for a marriage and a civil union (note, this will also capture the benefit that accrues to relatives if they find a benefit then they can help pay for the marriage). Would the couple be willing to pay $10,000 more ? I kind of doubt it but what do I know. Is it $1000 or only $50? If I had to guess I would probably place it somewhere between $100 and $1000. Actually the wide range is important here. I think often missing in this debate is recognizing that the expected benefits are pretty hard quantify with any precision and we are left with a fairly wide range.

What about costs? They seem to be very hard to estimate too. What are the costs of normalization? And by normalization it would have to be marginal normalization (there is lots of endogeneity in this case). We could consider the following market though. Two schools side by side that are identical in all respects except the one school teaches the children something about gay marriage and the other school remains silent about the subject. How much more would the representative parent be willing to pay to avoid the gay marriage teaching school. $20? I don't know. On the other hand it wouldn't have to be that large for it to matter since the population base here is much larger than those that wish to get gay married. This strikes me as true for the whole list. No one is sure about how big the expected costs are or how likely certain states of the world are but maybe that don't have to be that big. Sure, it is probably highly unlikely that tax-exempt status is affected because the church refuses to have gay marriage ceremonies. However, they may be likely enough to matter depending on the exact probability that they happen (no doubt low but how low?) and how big the costs are.

I have emphasized lack of good estimates about both the expected costs and benefits. To me that is the most important contour of the gay marriage debate. Both the estimated benefits and costs are woefully imprecise. On the merits of benefits and costs I have no idea which position is welfare increasing. I really don't. But given the imprecision in both the estimates of expected costs and benefits, isn't this exactly the time when you want a prophet to give guidance on a matter? Isn't this the kind of situation where it makes particular sense to listen to the prophet?

This is not really a call to change your mind. I wasn't planning to say anything until I was called out so many times.

pelagius

MikeWaters · 08-27-2008, 06:58 PM

When you are not sure about how much something is going to cost society, you set up an experiment to get a better idea. On a relatively small scale.

What experiments have already occurred? Some in Europe. And brief ones in Massachusetts and California.

Where does the data lead us? Apparently the best the church can come up with is that the number of married hetereosexuals is down over that time period (but no doubt, down BEFORE gay marriages were legalized). Maybe there is a very scientific study that really shows some reasonable evidence of it, but I'm not aware of it.

So the whole "we don't know the costs, it's too dangerous" argument has to be qualified that the experiment has been going on for some time now, at least in Europe.

It would be easier to believe and listen to the prophet had his arguments not been basically cribbed from the Fallwellian and Robertsonian schools. He should have just said, "Thus saith the Lord" and not tried to explain any of it. It's like the prophet just told me that this used Toyota is going to cost me $50,000 at the dealership, but the sticker on the car at the dealership clearly reads $15,000. He shouldn't have given a figure. He should have merely said, "It's too expensive."

Archaea · 08-27-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

If the expected benefit is relatively small then even if the "bad things" that have expected costs or small probability of occurring it may still be enough to oppose gay marriage.

It's great to inject a pragmatic approach to the discussion. Thanks.

pelagius · 08-27-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When you are not sure about how much something is going to cost society, you set up an experiment to get a better idea. On a relatively small scale.

What experiments have already occurred? Some in Europe. And brief ones in Massachusetts and California.

Those are hardly experiments. They are not even close to being natural experiments. While one can certainly do empirical work with such data it would still be very imprecise in terms of the inferences and estimates.

MikeWaters · 08-27-2008, 07:02 PM

I would also add that since the church has supported Prop 2 in Utah that bans civil unions, it's more fair to assume that the cost is between basically no civil union/marriage and marriage. In California, yes, it is between civil unions essentially, and marriage.

Also in your model you have to account for the steep trend towards support of civil unions and gay marriage, which is expected to continue to increase. In other words, in your model, maybe the $20 people win against the $1000 gays, but the chances that that is the case next year, and the year after, etc. are less and less.

MikeWaters · 08-27-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl D.

Those are hardly experiments. They are not even close to being natural experiments. While one can certainly do empirical work with such data it would still be very imprecise in terms of the inferences and estimates.

Yet the church makes broad unfounded claims, otherwise known as fear-mongering.

The predicted calamities should fall on the people of Massachusetts, and less so on the states surrounding it, all other factors being equal.

pelagius · 08-27-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I would also add that since the church has supported Prop 2 in Utah that bans civil unions, it's more fair to assume that the cost is between basically no civil union/marriage and marriage. In California, yes, it is between civil unions essentially, and marriage.

Thanks so it looks like I used the most relevant comparison for California.

Quote:

Also in your model you have to account for the steep trend towards support of civil unions and gay marriage, which is expected to continue to increase. In other words, in your model, maybe the $20 people win against the $1000 gays, but the chances that that is the case next year, and the year after, etc. are less and less.

Indeed, the costs and the benefits really are hard to estimate. Thanks, I agree.

pelagius · 08-27-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Yet the church makes broad unfounded claims, otherwise known as fear-mongering.

The predicted calamities should fall on the people of Massachusetts, and less so on the states surrounding it, all other factors being equal.

The church has pointed out some possible states of the world. How likely those states of the world are is a matter of debate but it doesn't mean they are irrelevant in the expected ccost calculation. You have to sum over all possible states of the world even improbable ones.

MikeWaters · 08-27-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

It's great to inject a pragmatic approach to the discussion. Thanks.

It's an argument that essentially accepts public opinion as a determining factor, and we know where public opinion is headed. And we know how the church feels about public opinion when it opposes the church's view.

Special interests win at times because 1) they convince others to not oppose them, and 2) they care more and fight harder.

Archaea · 08-27-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's an argument that essentially accepts public opinion as a determining factor, and we know where public opinion is headed. And we know how the church feels about public opinion when it opposes the church's view.

Special interests win at times because 1) they convince others to not oppose them, and 2) they care more and fight harder.

A non-judgmental cost analysis should always be employed even if we choose to go against the cost analysis.

08-27-2008, 06:50 PM	#1
pelagius Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,431	Gay marriage and probabilities Gay marriage, states of the worl First, let me state that I really am just not that interested in the gay marriage debate. However, I think I have been called out by Waters at least 8 times to respond to his response to “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” Consequently, I thought I would write down a few thoughts. This is not, however, a response to Waters' response. As near as I can tell, at the heart of “The Divine Institution of Marriage” is the argument that if gay marriage is allowed then society will be worse in same way. The document then goes on to outline some possible outcomes or states of the world in which society would be worse off. So that generally places the argument in the realm of how does gay marriage affect overall welfare. Is it welfare decreasing or is it welfare increasing in aggregate? Also, I near as I can tell most of the critical responses (besides sniping about language or that they document is derivative of other thought, etc, etc) to the list advanced in the document is the possible costs raised by the document are pretty small in magnitude at best or even if the supposed costs are big in some cases those cases are very unlikely. However, in my view a list of possible bad things should not be dismissed just because the expected costs are small or because a "bad" state of the world has an extremely small probability of occur. It really depends on the magnitude of the expected benefit. If the expected benefit is relatively small then even if the "bad things" that have expected costs or small probability of occurring it may still be enough to oppose gay marriage. How could we calculate the benefit of gay marriage to society? Well, conceptually its pretty easy. Just make a market for gay marriage. You have two goods that are substitutes but not perfect substitutes: gay marriage and civil unions (I believe this is the most relevant substitute good in the California debate over prop 8). So find the representative gay couple and find out what point they become indifferent between paying for a marriage and a civil union (note, this will also capture the benefit that accrues to relatives if they find a benefit then they can help pay for the marriage). Would the couple be willing to pay $10,000 more ? I kind of doubt it but what do I know. Is it $1000 or only $50? If I had to guess I would probably place it somewhere between $100 and $1000. Actually the wide range is important here. I think often missing in this debate is recognizing that the expected benefits are pretty hard quantify with any precision and we are left with a fairly wide range. What about costs? They seem to be very hard to estimate too. What are the costs of normalization? And by normalization it would have to be marginal normalization (there is lots of endogeneity in this case). We could consider the following market though. Two schools side by side that are identical in all respects except the one school teaches the children something about gay marriage and the other school remains silent about the subject. How much more would the representative parent be willing to pay to avoid the gay marriage teaching school. $20? I don't know. On the other hand it wouldn't have to be that large for it to matter since the population base here is much larger than those that wish to get gay married. This strikes me as true for the whole list. No one is sure about how big the expected costs are or how likely certain states of the world are but maybe that don't have to be that big. Sure, it is probably highly unlikely that tax-exempt status is affected because the church refuses to have gay marriage ceremonies. However, they may be likely enough to matter depending on the exact probability that they happen (no doubt low but how low?) and how big the costs are. I have emphasized lack of good estimates about both the expected costs and benefits. To me that is the most important contour of the gay marriage debate. Both the estimated benefits and costs are woefully imprecise. On the merits of benefits and costs I have no idea which position is welfare increasing. I really don't. But given the imprecision in both the estimates of expected costs and benefits, isn't this exactly the time when you want a prophet to give guidance on a matter? Isn't this the kind of situation where it makes particular sense to listen to the prophet? This is not really a call to change your mind. I wasn't planning to say anything until I was called out so many times. pelagius Last edited by pelagius; 08-27-2008 at 06:53 PM.

08-27-2008, 06:58 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	When you are not sure about how much something is going to cost society, you set up an experiment to get a better idea. On a relatively small scale. What experiments have already occurred? Some in Europe. And brief ones in Massachusetts and California. Where does the data lead us? Apparently the best the church can come up with is that the number of married hetereosexuals is down over that time period (but no doubt, down BEFORE gay marriages were legalized). Maybe there is a very scientific study that really shows some reasonable evidence of it, but I'm not aware of it. So the whole "we don't know the costs, it's too dangerous" argument has to be qualified that the experiment has been going on for some time now, at least in Europe. It would be easier to believe and listen to the prophet had his arguments not been basically cribbed from the Fallwellian and Robertsonian schools. He should have just said, "Thus saith the Lord" and not tried to explain any of it. It's like the prophet just told me that this used Toyota is going to cost me $50,000 at the dealership, but the sticker on the car at the dealership clearly reads $15,000. He shouldn't have given a figure. He should have merely said, "It's too expensive."

08-27-2008, 07:02 PM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I would also add that since the church has supported Prop 2 in Utah that bans civil unions, it's more fair to assume that the cost is between basically no civil union/marriage and marriage. In California, yes, it is between civil unions essentially, and marriage. Also in your model you have to account for the steep trend towards support of civil unions and gay marriage, which is expected to continue to increase. In other words, in your model, maybe the $20 people win against the $1000 gays, but the chances that that is the case next year, and the year after, etc. are less and less.