4 ms·

So, my two reactions: 1) duh 2) but, proving cause vs. effect seems tricky here, since which states legalized was in no way assigned randomly. An accelerating

So, my two reactions: 1) duh 2) but, proving cause vs. effect seems tricky here, since which states legalized was in no way assigned randomly. An accelerating decline in antigay bias would be exactly what we should expect to happen around the time the legislature or courts see which way the wind is blowing, and legalize gay marriage. Not that I disbelieve the conclusion, but this doesn't seem like it would be very convincing evidence if I weren't already convinced.

bunderbunder 8y ago
My thoughts, too. If you've got to pick one, the much more parsimonious explanation would be that people's attitudes are influenced by the attitudes of their friends and acquaintances. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both. I'm sure people's ethical judgments are influenced by the law, too. It's the main reason I can think of why, for example, alcohol tends to be so very much more socially acceptable than marijuana in places where the one is legal and the other is not.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  Sure, I also believe it is a mix of both. But, this study is probably overestimating the degree to which the legalization is responsible for the change in attitudes. Also, it is probably "only" accelerating a change that was going to happen anyway. For example, there were times and places when divorce was legal, but did not become "accepted" socially for a generation or several. So, I don't think the causation primarily goes from legalization-->social attitudes. But, I agree it's probably a mix.
thatoneuser 8y ago
Yeah I think the science is flaky but the intuition is so strong I'll give it a pass :/
charliesharding 8y ago
This title is misleading considering their findings. Only in states that were already moving towards legalization and reduced bias did you see a sharper reduction after federal legalization. States that weren't moving towards legalization only dug in their heels and had increased bias after federal legalization. Looks like another case of the government trying to speak for everyone with a one-size-fits-all solution and only serving to polarize people further. "Although states passing legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed legislation demonstrated increased antigay bias following federal legalization."
- ThirdFoundation 8y ago
  The government (the Supreme Court in this case) wasn't speaking for everyone, they were merely protecting the rights of a certain segment of the population. It's an important distinction to make. There was no constitutional basis for denying same-sex marriage.
  - rossdavidh 8y ago
    True that, but that can be completely true, and yet it can be also true that having it imposed by the courts leads to a backlash, and an increase in anti-gay bias. It is sort of like how people never like it when their candidate in an election loses, but if the courts intervene and disqualify their candidate, their resentment of the winner is greater. Regardless of whether the courts were right or not, the fact that a non-electorate authority made the decision, increases the dissatisfaction with the outcome.
    - ThirdFoundation 8y ago
      Good point, I guess the comment to which I responded could be read two different ways also. No one likes to be forced to do anything, and any perception of unfairness could easily elicit a stronger response of resentment or resistance. I personally think when it comes to protecting rights it may be warranted, but I definitely see how the situation you explained could also be true. It's a tough thing to balance.

bunderbunder 8y ago

My thoughts, too. If you've got to pick one, the much more parsimonious explanation would be that people's attitudes are influenced by the attitudes of their friends and acquaintances. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a mix of both. I'm sure people's ethical judgments are influenced by the law, too. It's the main reason I can think of why, for example, alcohol tends to be so very much more socially acceptable than marijuana in places where the one is legal and the other is not.

rossdavidh 8y ago
Sure, I also believe it is a mix of both. But, this study is probably overestimating the degree to which the legalization is responsible for the change in attitudes. Also, it is probably "only" accelerating a change that was going to happen anyway. For example, there were times and places when divorce was legal, but did not become "accepted" socially for a generation or several. So, I don't think the causation primarily goes from legalization-->social attitudes. But, I agree it's probably a mix.

thatoneuser 8y ago

Yeah I think the science is flaky but the intuition is so strong I'll give it a pass :/

charliesharding 8y ago

This title is misleading considering their findings. Only in states that were already moving towards legalization and reduced bias did you see a sharper reduction after federal legalization. States that weren't moving towards legalization only dug in their heels and had increased bias after federal legalization. Looks like another case of the government trying to speak for everyone with a one-size-fits-all solution and only serving to polarize people further. "Although states passing legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed legislation demonstrated increased antigay bias following federal legalization."

ThirdFoundation 8y ago
The government (the Supreme Court in this case) wasn't speaking for everyone, they were merely protecting the rights of a certain segment of the population. It's an important distinction to make. There was no constitutional basis for denying same-sex marriage.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  True that, but that can be completely true, and yet it can be also true that having it imposed by the courts leads to a backlash, and an increase in anti-gay bias. It is sort of like how people never like it when their candidate in an election loses, but if the courts intervene and disqualify their candidate, their resentment of the winner is greater. Regardless of whether the courts were right or not, the fact that a non-electorate authority made the decision, increases the dissatisfaction with the outcome.
  - ThirdFoundation 8y ago
    Good point, I guess the comment to which I responded could be read two different ways also. No one likes to be forced to do anything, and any perception of unfairness could easily elicit a stronger response of resentment or resistance. I personally think when it comes to protecting rights it may be warranted, but I definitely see how the situation you explained could also be true. It's a tough thing to balance.