Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, August 4, 2010
Politics Re: Re: While We Wait For a Federal Judge in San Francisco to Rule on Gay Marriage Today...
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Dan makes a good point. I figured a statement like this—from the 2006 ruling by Washington State Supreme Court Justices Jim Johnson and Richard B. Sanders in our state's gay marriage case—would be self-evidently absurd to most Slog readers:
But yes, best to link to the counter-evidence.
What I think may be even more important, though, is to examine the "evidence" that supports the above claim, which Johnson and Sanders relied on heavily to support their opinion that gay marriage should remain illegal in Washington State. I was planning to do that today, "while we wait" as they say.
Let's do it right now!
First, note the footnote in the quote above. Here is what that footnote says:
- Dr. Jeffrey B. Satinover
"Satinover" refers to Dr. Jeffrey B. Satinover, a supporter of the "ex-gay" movement and a familiar figure on the anti-gay-marriage testimony circuit who filed a declaration in Washington's gay marriage case—a declaration that Johnson and Sanders cited repeatedly in their decision.
For example, Johnson and Sanders declared:
And, they continued:
All of that opining from Jonson and Sanders links directly, through footnotes, back to the Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey B. Satinover. (Which, by the way, I'm working on getting a copy of and happens to be somewhat difficult to locate in electronic form. If anyone out there in the Washington gay rights community has a copy, please send it me.)
Let's set aside, for now, the ex-gay background of Dr. Satinover and the dubiousness of his scientific evidence. Instead, let's play a little game to pass the "while we wait" time. It's called:
Try to spot the giant logical fallacy present in the decision by Johnson and Sanders!
Here, I've summarized a central part of their Satinover-citing decision to make it easy. Johnson and Sanders believe the following:
Because a) homosexual couples with children necessarily mean a "motherless" or "fatherless" household then b) children of homosexual couples stand to suffer all the worst harms of being raised without a mother or father and therefore c) the state legislature has a rational interest in preventing homosexual marriage because d) banning homosexual marriage will stop children in Washington from being raised in motherless or fatherless households.
Well? Can you spot the giant logical fallacy in what Johnson and Sanders considered to be a "rational basis" for banning gay marriage in Washington?
1
My (straight) marriage is also motherless and fatherless. Does that have something to do with the giant logical fallacy?
2
Regarding point (b): the harms associated with motherlessness or fatherlessness might perhaps be linked to single parent heterosexual pairings, not to coupled unions.
Regarding point (d): children adopted by gay couples are already living in motherless or fatherless households, by definition, since being put up for adoption implies a disinterest in raising the child in a traditional family in any case.
Regarding point (d): children adopted by gay couples are already living in motherless or fatherless households, by definition, since being put up for adoption implies a disinterest in raising the child in a traditional family in any case.
3
Or the fact that the data about motherless and fatherless homes presumably studied families that were one-parent families in virtue of being "motherless" or "fatherless". So in effect, they are comparing one-parent straight apples to two-parent gay oranges.
4
DJ, I'd like you to meet Justices Sanders & Johnson.
Justices, this is my son DJ. And this is DJ's other dad Terry.
Justices, this is my son DJ. And this is DJ's other dad Terry.
5
Hmmm.. This might make total sense if the gays were STEALING children from households with both mothers and fathers.
6
b) is questionable based on what #2 and 3 said - basically that 'motherless' and 'fatherless' in this context means single-parent, and people who use those statistics in gay marriage debates are playing word games.
d) is an example of the third-cause fallacy, a variation of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
d) is an example of the third-cause fallacy, a variation of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
7
I see two. (1) That a "fatherless" or "motherless" yet two-parent gay-marriage home will suffer equivalent stressors as a single parent home without the (presumed) opposite sex parent; and (2) that the State's action in banning gay marriage will have any effect of preventing children from being raised in "motherless" or "fatherless" homes.
8
Hard to say without the actual paper, but I'm thinking he's comparing apples to oranges.
1) With respect to comparing the length of relationships, the relevant comparison is relationships with children, not relationships in general. If you compared homos with kids to hets with kids, I'm guessing there would be no disparity in relationship durability.
2) With respect to motherless and fatherless relationships, he's comparing single-parent families with heterosexual two-parent families. The relevant comparison, however, is between two-parent gay and straight families. You'll also need to consider whether the child was adopted when making these comparisons, as well as socio-economic status, education, etc.
1) With respect to comparing the length of relationships, the relevant comparison is relationships with children, not relationships in general. If you compared homos with kids to hets with kids, I'm guessing there would be no disparity in relationship durability.
2) With respect to motherless and fatherless relationships, he's comparing single-parent families with heterosexual two-parent families. The relevant comparison, however, is between two-parent gay and straight families. You'll also need to consider whether the child was adopted when making these comparisons, as well as socio-economic status, education, etc.
12
And Julie in Eugene @11 for the Win!! You don't have to have kids to be married, and you don't have to be married to have kids. Nowhere on any marriage license or birth certificate is there a requirement of procreation or wedlock, respectively, and there never will be.
14
Even if you can ignore the ridiculous supporting data, their whole argument presumes that the only legitimate purpose of marriage is to raise children.
By that logic, heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry except to raise kids. And when the children are grown and gone, their marriages should be dissolved. And they should not be allowed to divorce for any reason until the children are grown and gone.
If you allow heterosexuals to marry without kids, or to be single parents, or to divorce, or to be shitty parents, or to get married when they are past child-bearing age, then you cannot use "kids" as an excuse to disallow gay marriage.
By that logic, heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry except to raise kids. And when the children are grown and gone, their marriages should be dissolved. And they should not be allowed to divorce for any reason until the children are grown and gone.
If you allow heterosexuals to marry without kids, or to be single parents, or to divorce, or to be shitty parents, or to get married when they are past child-bearing age, then you cannot use "kids" as an excuse to disallow gay marriage.
15
@13 I'm sure there's a keyboard shortcut, but I just type my comment in Word (inserting the ≠ symbol) and pasted.
18
I think I found the logical fallacy...Johnson and Sanders deny the antecedent. Their argument, if you reframe it as a syllogism, could be articulated like this:
"Children with a mother and father (this is the antecedent) are happy and successful (the consequent).
The children of homosexuals are not children with a mother and father.
Therefore they're not happy and successful"
But denying the antecedent does not necessary lead to any logical conclusion. The mistake becomes obvious when you examine a simpler argument with the same structure:
"All men are mortal
My dog is not a man
Therefore my dog is not mortal"
Even in an argument with correct premises you can't arrive at a valid conclusion. So, even if you accept Johnson and Sanders's premises (which I don't think you should) you still have to reject their argument.
"Children with a mother and father (this is the antecedent) are happy and successful (the consequent).
The children of homosexuals are not children with a mother and father.
Therefore they're not happy and successful"
But denying the antecedent does not necessary lead to any logical conclusion. The mistake becomes obvious when you examine a simpler argument with the same structure:
"All men are mortal
My dog is not a man
Therefore my dog is not mortal"
Even in an argument with correct premises you can't arrive at a valid conclusion. So, even if you accept Johnson and Sanders's premises (which I don't think you should) you still have to reject their argument.
19
I was reared by lesbians. I can assure anyone who is terribly concerned that I DID have a father figure in the home - my mother's girlfriend very definitely filled that role. She did not have a penis. As a child, however, I did not have a need for her to possess such an appendage. What I needed was two parents. That is what I had. It was irrelevant, immaterial, and not apparent to me as a child that my parents were both women, and thus less qualified to rear a child.
23
This morning CNN had Tony AND Gary (of "Tony and Gary hare having a baby!" fame, for you loyal sloggers who have been inexplicably shielded from the biggest story in Queerdom of the past six months....) on commenting on the Prop 8 decision.
Has America found new Gay Dad Spokesmodels???
Has America found new Gay Dad Spokesmodels???
24
of course not.
you don't have to be married to have children.
not if you're skipping to Gommorah.
hence our societies descending thrill ride around and around the bottom of the crapper......
you don't have to be married to have children.
not if you're skipping to Gommorah.
hence our societies descending thrill ride around and around the bottom of the crapper......
26
@22, works locally, but when you type it into a comment and go to preview, it changes to a "?".
Best explanation? Go here.
TL;DR? Just type & n e (without the spaces) into the "Add a comment" window (works in many forums, including Slog.
&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne
Best explanation? Go here.
TL;DR? Just type & n e (without the spaces) into the "Add a comment" window (works in many forums, including Slog.
&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne&ne
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (27) RSS