Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, October 27, 2012
LGBTQITSLFA Debunking NOM's Hateful Arguments
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Via JMG.
1
Debunking may not be enough, all nom has to do is frighten enough people and since frightened people vote the status quo.
3
Points three and four have some merit. Historically (by which I mean in pre-modern times), marriage has protected women by making it harder for the men to discard them when they got old or tiresome. As of the latter half of the twentieth century, this has been 1. less necessary for women and 2. more likely to affect men, as evidenced by the 1970 Supreme Court ruling that said that men must have equal rights to alimony.
It not too out there to say that marriage civilizes men. It's more accurate to say that the presence of women civilizes men.
What offends me about this video the most is that science is once again being warped and co-opted to support bigotry. Welcome back Social Darwinism. It's a lab coat wrapped around a scarecrow.
It not too out there to say that marriage civilizes men. It's more accurate to say that the presence of women civilizes men.
What offends me about this video the most is that science is once again being warped and co-opted to support bigotry. Welcome back Social Darwinism. It's a lab coat wrapped around a scarecrow.
4
I agreed with most of what the guy in the video had to say, but I still have a huge crush on Maggie Gallagher.
5
The statistics about what's the best environment for children are ceaselessly misused by these anti-gay types. Studies show that children raised with a mother and a father tend to do better than children raised by a single parent. From there bigots often extrapolate that same-sex couples offer inferior parenting, which is not supported by the evidence. The few studies that compare same-sex parenting to the other two categories (opposite-sex parents and single parent) overwhelmingly find no statistically significant differences in the children's outcome.
6
@5 I'm not sure it's that simple, VL. Maggie Gallagher claims that studies show households consisting of a married couple and their biological children produce the best outcomes for children. She claims that the data shows that this arrangement is not only preferable to single parenting but also to children being raised by cohabiting but unmarried parents or by a parent and a step-parent. I've heard Maggie Gallagher make this claim in quite a few debates and I've never heard any of the liberal academics she argues with say it isn't so.
7
@3:
"It not too out there to say that marriage civilizes men. It's more accurate to say that the presence of women civilizes men."
? Gay men are uncivilized?
"It not too out there to say that marriage civilizes men. It's more accurate to say that the presence of women civilizes men."
? Gay men are uncivilized?
8
@6: And of course NOM and Maggie are working hard to prevent unmarried heterosexuals and stepfamilies from having children. Because it's only about children, not about the gays.
9
Mr M - Well, that's the big LMB moment of the week.
Ms F - I think, with a little effort, you can rephrase your point to be much less offensive. Mulligan bestowed.
Ms F - I think, with a little effort, you can rephrase your point to be much less offensive. Mulligan bestowed.
10
What @1 said. This is preaching to the choir- meanwhile NOM's ads air daily, the electorate swallows what they say without question and R-74 goes down to defeat.
I wish that our side would run a "LIES!!" ad for every single one that NOM runs, and preferably in the same time slot as their lying filth ads. But no, we're trying to win by appealing to the electorates' fairness, kindness and rationality, which all goes out the window when the smallest "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" mention is made. Grrrr.
I've got a bucket of Ativan waiting for me on Nov. 7th....... President Rmoney, Gov Jay Inslee and a defeated R74. Yay for 'Merica- the homos lose again!
[rant off]
I wish that our side would run a "LIES!!" ad for every single one that NOM runs, and preferably in the same time slot as their lying filth ads. But no, we're trying to win by appealing to the electorates' fairness, kindness and rationality, which all goes out the window when the smallest "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" mention is made. Grrrr.
I've got a bucket of Ativan waiting for me on Nov. 7th....... President Rmoney, Gov Jay Inslee and a defeated R74. Yay for 'Merica- the homos lose again!
[rant off]
12
5
ooops...
Let's fix that for you.....
"The statistics about what's the best environment for children are ceaselessly misused by these gay types. Studies show that children raised with a mother and a father tend to do much better than children raised by a single parent. From there homosexual bigots often extrapolate that same-sex couples offer the same parenting benefit as heterosexual couples, which is not supported by the evidence. The few studies that compare same-sex parenting to the other two categories (opposite-sex parents and single parent) are so small and poorly constructed that they reveal no statistically significant data."
You're welcome. Dumbass.
ooops...
Let's fix that for you.....
"The statistics about what's the best environment for children are ceaselessly misused by these gay types. Studies show that children raised with a mother and a father tend to do much better than children raised by a single parent. From there homosexual bigots often extrapolate that same-sex couples offer the same parenting benefit as heterosexual couples, which is not supported by the evidence. The few studies that compare same-sex parenting to the other two categories (opposite-sex parents and single parent) are so small and poorly constructed that they reveal no statistically significant data."
You're welcome. Dumbass.
13
Aren't the same types who think gay people are inferior also the same types who think Americans are better than everyone else? So why use a person with an accent? That aspect seems odd to me... The rest is just sad.
Also, I really hate when idiots try to use science.
Also, I really hate when idiots try to use science.
14
"Only straight couples have the freedom to marry the person they love..."
oh no....
"LOVE !"
Please tell us ANY city, county or state that guarantees ANYONE the right to marry whom they LOVE.....
Or that asks a couple if they are in LOVE when they marry.
sad sappy irrelevant bullshit.
oh no....
"LOVE !"
Please tell us ANY city, county or state that guarantees ANYONE the right to marry whom they LOVE.....
Or that asks a couple if they are in LOVE when they marry.
sad sappy irrelevant bullshit.
15
These people spewing this false hate-stirring rhetoric is the same as "the mus-lums) (sic) that you see on the news screaming Death to America, railing on about the decadence of the west and basically saying that any using any means necessary to achieve their ends is okay.
Their entire video is annoying, especially the voice over trying to sound as though she's from the future, when in fact she's from the last century. The "point" that really sticks in my craw is that "your tax dollars are being used to fund homosexual relationships" (or whatever the hell she said....my head already hurts from having to listen to it once, I don't have it in me to do it a second time). The lack of tax benefits that the LGBT community suffers costs us thousands of dollars every year.
I'm as big a pacifist (and maybe even a woosy) as you'll ever meet, but damn I want to punch these people right in the throat.
Their entire video is annoying, especially the voice over trying to sound as though she's from the future, when in fact she's from the last century. The "point" that really sticks in my craw is that "your tax dollars are being used to fund homosexual relationships" (or whatever the hell she said....my head already hurts from having to listen to it once, I don't have it in me to do it a second time). The lack of tax benefits that the LGBT community suffers costs us thousands of dollars every year.
I'm as big a pacifist (and maybe even a woosy) as you'll ever meet, but damn I want to punch these people right in the throat.
16
"Natural Marriage creates children."
Is and has been overwhelming true.
The fact that "Sex creates children",
as the pissy little tightass in the video asserts
does not negate that fact;
nor does his brilliant revelation that
"you don't have to have created children to be a parent".
The fact is that homosexual pairings will NEVER produce children, no matter how much lipstick you smear on that pig by labeling those pairings "marriage".
Point NOM.
Is and has been overwhelming true.
The fact that "Sex creates children",
as the pissy little tightass in the video asserts
does not negate that fact;
nor does his brilliant revelation that
"you don't have to have created children to be a parent".
The fact is that homosexual pairings will NEVER produce children, no matter how much lipstick you smear on that pig by labeling those pairings "marriage".
Point NOM.
17
And tightass glosses right over the "protects women" and "civilizes men" like he doesn't know what they are talking about.
He must get his cue from Obama ducking questions about Libya....
In fact Marriage does provide great security to women and children (that is the point, after all....)
Two men "married" really doesn't civilize anyone
and two women "married" don't need to be protected from anyone, do they...
Points NOM
He must get his cue from Obama ducking questions about Libya....
In fact Marriage does provide great security to women and children (that is the point, after all....)
Two men "married" really doesn't civilize anyone
and two women "married" don't need to be protected from anyone, do they...
Points NOM
18
At least tightass is honest enough to admit that Traditional Heterosexual Marriage "lowers crime, poverty and welfare"
Point NOM (but tightass gets a wink for admitting he is wrong...)
Point NOM (but tightass gets a wink for admitting he is wrong...)
19
oooooh...
tightass really gets indignant when NOM points out that homosexual "marriage" merely validates sex partners.
but when two people choose to engage in sexual behavior that will NEVER produce children society really doesn't care what they do and has no interest in financially subsidizing it.
shove your indignation up your tighass.......
tightass really gets indignant when NOM points out that homosexual "marriage" merely validates sex partners.
but when two people choose to engage in sexual behavior that will NEVER produce children society really doesn't care what they do and has no interest in financially subsidizing it.
shove your indignation up your tighass.......
21
@2, they may be a small segment of the population, but if my experience today at the Approve R74 phone bank in Bellevue is any indication, their arguments sway a lot of people. Many of their lies or opinions were repeated verbatim, especially by people more central or east-stateside. But hey, got a persuasion and recruited another volunteer, so today was a win, overall :)
26
@6 Maybe it's because it's a complete non sequitor, and is only used to support bigotry.
OK, fine. I'm not going to look at the study, but let's say it's 100% correct. What, then, shall we do w/ orphans? Just give up on them because they won't grow up in ideal circumstances? What shall we do about children of divorced parents? What about children of a single-parent household?
None of these questions are "solved" by making same-sex marriage illegal. Bringing up this question leads one to ask, how does the religious right want to solve them? They don't. Unless you call shaming, dismissing, ignoring a solution. I don't.
The point is, Maggie & the rest of the NOM crowd, (and possibly you, Ken) doesn't give a flying fuck about kids, unless as easy brains to indoctrinate. This is just another tactic to install their 'nanny-state' morality on the rest of us, using children as shields. I've always been sickened by hypocritical hand-wringers like yourself, because your morality lasts only as long as people are watching you.
OK, fine. I'm not going to look at the study, but let's say it's 100% correct. What, then, shall we do w/ orphans? Just give up on them because they won't grow up in ideal circumstances? What shall we do about children of divorced parents? What about children of a single-parent household?
None of these questions are "solved" by making same-sex marriage illegal. Bringing up this question leads one to ask, how does the religious right want to solve them? They don't. Unless you call shaming, dismissing, ignoring a solution. I don't.
The point is, Maggie & the rest of the NOM crowd, (and possibly you, Ken) doesn't give a flying fuck about kids, unless as easy brains to indoctrinate. This is just another tactic to install their 'nanny-state' morality on the rest of us, using children as shields. I've always been sickened by hypocritical hand-wringers like yourself, because your morality lasts only as long as people are watching you.
27
@12: Learn2Statistics. You're rejecting the null hypothesis in the absence of an effect. We're supporting the null hypothesis in the absence of an effect. (Yes, the null hypothesis cannot be PROVEN.) It's not extrapolation to say that gays and straights parent just as well based on data that don't show any difference.
@16: Um...marriage doesn't create children. Just because it is commonly associated with children doesn't make you and NOM correct.
@18: Straight marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare. So does gay marriage. NOM is lying by omission, not by fabrication, in that instance.
@19: So the purpose of marriage, according to you, is to encourage people to have the kind of sex that leads to reproduction? That's funny. I thought it was about affirming a deep personal connection between two people.
I see Alleged has continued his usual method of refuting arguments: say a bunch of condescending stuff and pretend it means anything.
@16: Um...marriage doesn't create children. Just because it is commonly associated with children doesn't make you and NOM correct.
@18: Straight marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare. So does gay marriage. NOM is lying by omission, not by fabrication, in that instance.
@19: So the purpose of marriage, according to you, is to encourage people to have the kind of sex that leads to reproduction? That's funny. I thought it was about affirming a deep personal connection between two people.
I see Alleged has continued his usual method of refuting arguments: say a bunch of condescending stuff and pretend it means anything.
28
Someone up above (maybe a troll, but even trolls are right at times) brought up the silliness of preaching about "love". Maybe that's well-intentioned, but it misses the mark. Bigots don't care whether gay people love each other; that's not going to change their minds. The right to marry isn't about love. It's about the CIVIL RIGHT of gay people to enter into a contract that straight people can.
29
Baume is normally so calm and rational, but he is now (justifiably) clearly pissed off. I would be too, if I had to sit through hour after hour of NOM/Vatican propaganda, calmly and rationally debunking their same old dehumanizing arguments, day after day, week after week. GET ANGRY, GET EQUAL!
30
@27: Don't all the most robust statistical analyses begin by assigning the effect we desire to see to the null, then demand that atheists and queers prove a negative?
31
@7 Gay men get plenty of contact with women in modern society: mothers, sisters, coworkers, bosses, employees, celebrities on TV. When women are absent or silent, men become less civilized. A man's wife is one of his most important female influences but she is not the only one.
The follow-up commercial that shouts "Lies! Lies!" after NOM's lies sounds amusing, but any argument that's limited to debunking the other sides' argument is allowing the other side to set the agenda. What would really help is a commercial talking about all the good things that gay marriage brings. It's been around in New York long enough for there to be some statistics to gather. A few more years and there will be school-aged adopted kids to study. (Though, hopefully, by then it'll be moot.)
...why would legalizing marriage be any form of financial subsidy? People pay slightly higher taxes when they're married, not slightly lower.
The follow-up commercial that shouts "Lies! Lies!" after NOM's lies sounds amusing, but any argument that's limited to debunking the other sides' argument is allowing the other side to set the agenda. What would really help is a commercial talking about all the good things that gay marriage brings. It's been around in New York long enough for there to be some statistics to gather. A few more years and there will be school-aged adopted kids to study. (Though, hopefully, by then it'll be moot.)
...why would legalizing marriage be any form of financial subsidy? People pay slightly higher taxes when they're married, not slightly lower.
32
27
No.
Studies look at married heterosexual parents; then Al Franken and the rest of the junk science homoclown club come along and squeal that because there are two homosexual caregivers the results must apply to them as well.
Franken infamously misrepresented a Dec 2010 HHS study in a Senate hearing. That study compared families parented by heterosexual married couples to all other configurations.
Franken retroactively erroneously applied the positive results seen in heterosexual married families to homosexual pair caregivers. To the applause of the jackals in the gallery.
It reminds of the scene from the original Planet of the Apes where the Orangutang cites Ape Law to confound Charlston Heston's character....
The reality is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what you state in @5.
.
Please cite studies showing that homosexual marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare.
.
No.
You evidently can't read.
According to us society finds no benefit from financially subsidizing homosexual pairings sexual activities.
No.
Studies look at married heterosexual parents; then Al Franken and the rest of the junk science homoclown club come along and squeal that because there are two homosexual caregivers the results must apply to them as well.
Franken infamously misrepresented a Dec 2010 HHS study in a Senate hearing. That study compared families parented by heterosexual married couples to all other configurations.
Franken retroactively erroneously applied the positive results seen in heterosexual married families to homosexual pair caregivers. To the applause of the jackals in the gallery.
It reminds of the scene from the original Planet of the Apes where the Orangutang cites Ape Law to confound Charlston Heston's character....
The reality is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what you state in @5.
.
Please cite studies showing that homosexual marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare.
.
No.
You evidently can't read.
According to us society finds no benefit from financially subsidizing homosexual pairings sexual activities.
33
@26 My girl Maggie has made it clear that she opposes gay marriage, but not gay adoption. She thinks families composed of a hetero-married couple and the biological children that they produce should be held up as the ideal, but she understands that ideal can not always be realized in practice. She doesn't think single parents, step parents, or gay parents are the worst people in the world. However, she believes those types of parenting arrangements are not the ideal society ought to be striving for. Because same sex couples can not create the types of families she believes to be ideal she does not think they should be legally designated as marriages.
34
26
What shall we do?
We acknowledge and foster and encourage the social structure that provides kids the best opportunity.
Through the popular culture and public policy.
We teach kids that marrying and staying married is the best lifestyle choice for them and for their children.
We support single parent households and orphans.
But we do not pretend that inferior competing social structures are Just As Good.
And we do not grant them the same status as Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
What shall we do?
We acknowledge and foster and encourage the social structure that provides kids the best opportunity.
Through the popular culture and public policy.
We teach kids that marrying and staying married is the best lifestyle choice for them and for their children.
We support single parent households and orphans.
But we do not pretend that inferior competing social structures are Just As Good.
And we do not grant them the same status as Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
35
@33, your girl Maggie is an ignorant bigot, and even your own argument contradicts itself.
How can you simultaneously support gay adoption and reject gay marriage? If you support gay adoption, wouldn't you want those adopted kids to be raised by adoptive parents that have a legally recognized marriage, rather than a sham second-class almost-marriage?
And holding up some sort of ideal to restrict my rights is ridiculous. All sorts of people who don't meet your ideal (1 man + 1 woman + bio kids) are allowed to get married. And divorced. And remarried. People who don't want kids at all are allowed to marry. Old people well past the age of childbearing are allowed to marry. Infertile people are allowed to marry. People who get married but fail to produce children are allowed to stay married. Bearing and raising children has never been a requirement for marriage in this county. Give me one logical reason your ideal should be used to restrict my rights, but not the rights of millions of hetero marriages that do not meet your ideal.
How can you simultaneously support gay adoption and reject gay marriage? If you support gay adoption, wouldn't you want those adopted kids to be raised by adoptive parents that have a legally recognized marriage, rather than a sham second-class almost-marriage?
And holding up some sort of ideal to restrict my rights is ridiculous. All sorts of people who don't meet your ideal (1 man + 1 woman + bio kids) are allowed to get married. And divorced. And remarried. People who don't want kids at all are allowed to marry. Old people well past the age of childbearing are allowed to marry. Infertile people are allowed to marry. People who get married but fail to produce children are allowed to stay married. Bearing and raising children has never been a requirement for marriage in this county. Give me one logical reason your ideal should be used to restrict my rights, but not the rights of millions of hetero marriages that do not meet your ideal.
36
@35 "How can you simultaneously support gay adoption and reject gay marriage? If you support gay adoption, wouldn't you want those adopted kids to be raised by adoptive parents that have a legally recognized marriage, rather than a sham second-class almost-marriage?"
That is a good question. If you asked Maggie that during the Q&A session after one of her public appearances I bet she would use her great big Ivy League educated brain to come up with some bullshit to fill in that gap in her philosophical position. By contrast, Tony Perkins would get a blank look on his face and then change the subject. Her ability to adapt her bigoted neanderthal views to fresh arguments and new information is what makes Maggie Gallagher hot. Smart is so sexy.
As far as straight couples who are unable or unwilling to make babies being allowed to marry, I think Maggie would say we should create a legal structure that facilitates the creation of proper families but doesn't intrude into people's private lives more than necessary. 'All marriages will consist of exactly one man and one women' is an easily understood and easily enforced rule that serves this purpose. I think Maggie would agree with you that the greatest threat to the traditional family is heterosexual divorce, not homosexual marriage. I'm pretty sure she wants to do away with no-fault divorce.
That is a good question. If you asked Maggie that during the Q&A session after one of her public appearances I bet she would use her great big Ivy League educated brain to come up with some bullshit to fill in that gap in her philosophical position. By contrast, Tony Perkins would get a blank look on his face and then change the subject. Her ability to adapt her bigoted neanderthal views to fresh arguments and new information is what makes Maggie Gallagher hot. Smart is so sexy.
As far as straight couples who are unable or unwilling to make babies being allowed to marry, I think Maggie would say we should create a legal structure that facilitates the creation of proper families but doesn't intrude into people's private lives more than necessary. 'All marriages will consist of exactly one man and one women' is an easily understood and easily enforced rule that serves this purpose. I think Maggie would agree with you that the greatest threat to the traditional family is heterosexual divorce, not homosexual marriage. I'm pretty sure she wants to do away with no-fault divorce.
37
@32: Um...Franken was right and you are wrong. The study in question lumped gay couples and straight couples together; you can't use that data set to try and draw a distinction between those two.
It is true that most studies only look at straight couples versus single parents. Such studies cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of gay couples as parents. HOWEVER, the few studies that HAVE compared gay couples to straight couples have found little or no statistically significant differences in children's outcomes. To which you respond by complaining that the sample sizes were too small (sometimes true, sometimes false) and that we should go according to your view, despite the fact that it has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER supporting it.
Please cite studies showing that heterosexual marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare.
No, YOU evidently can't read. I said that marriage, as a civil institution, has nothing to do with sex.
@30: You said it.
It is true that most studies only look at straight couples versus single parents. Such studies cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of gay couples as parents. HOWEVER, the few studies that HAVE compared gay couples to straight couples have found little or no statistically significant differences in children's outcomes. To which you respond by complaining that the sample sizes were too small (sometimes true, sometimes false) and that we should go according to your view, despite the fact that it has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER supporting it.
Please cite studies showing that heterosexual marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare.
No, YOU evidently can't read. I said that marriage, as a civil institution, has nothing to do with sex.
@30: You said it.
38
Why do they have a brittish speaker voice? Do they think it makes them sound civilised and intelligent?
39
37
@27 you said: "Straight marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare."
you cite the studies.
How many homosexual married couples did the 2010 HHS study look at?
@27 you said: "Straight marriage lowers rates of crime, poverty, and welfare."
you cite the studies.
How many homosexual married couples did the 2010 HHS study look at?
41
Ms F - The question is probably impossible to settle, as much depends on who gets to define "civilized" and it's doubtful that there will be sufficient agreement on a workable definition - similar to the way in which Anne Elliot could invalidate Captain Harville's point that literature painted Woman as the less constant gender because Man had held the pen.
Do you not see how offensively you're stating your point? On your system, gay men have to cram their lives extra full of women to catch up to straight men on the civilized scale (probably to the point that there isn't enough room for a gay life, which kinda sorta might be the point, but no more now on that now) due to the tremendous disadvantage in not having a female significant other. At the very least, the most logical inference is that gay men start out way behind straight men, and that offends me. If, like Anne Elliot and Captain, we can each acknowledge good will towards the other, we can agree to disagree in good faith. I don't take your statement as indicative of good will as you state it, but think it could be restated acceptably.
A while back, I annoyed a number of people when I speculated that a Matriarchy would eradicate male homosexuality. A number of women took this to mean that I was calling feminists anti-gay-male, but you have illustrated the sort of idea that was really in my mind. Develop a pill that will turn gay men straight, force them all to take it, and just think of how much more civilized men will become, and how much better it will be for society. You may not be advocating such a course, but the distance from A to B is but a step to my weary eyes.
Do you not see how offensively you're stating your point? On your system, gay men have to cram their lives extra full of women to catch up to straight men on the civilized scale (probably to the point that there isn't enough room for a gay life, which kinda sorta might be the point, but no more now on that now) due to the tremendous disadvantage in not having a female significant other. At the very least, the most logical inference is that gay men start out way behind straight men, and that offends me. If, like Anne Elliot and Captain, we can each acknowledge good will towards the other, we can agree to disagree in good faith. I don't take your statement as indicative of good will as you state it, but think it could be restated acceptably.
A while back, I annoyed a number of people when I speculated that a Matriarchy would eradicate male homosexuality. A number of women took this to mean that I was calling feminists anti-gay-male, but you have illustrated the sort of idea that was really in my mind. Develop a pill that will turn gay men straight, force them all to take it, and just think of how much more civilized men will become, and how much better it will be for society. You may not be advocating such a course, but the distance from A to B is but a step to my weary eyes.
42
Mr M - To put it less than politely, kindly either get it up or shut up. Go breed with Ms Gallagher; then, when you have done so successfully, you may return and pay her all the personal compliments you desire. Until then, you are emulating the Duchess' boy, who only sneezes to annoy.
43
I'm confused by this accent. It sounds like a weird amalgamation of Dutch speaking english and South African. Any guesses?
45
@39: I don't know how many gay couples the study looked at. It didn't say; it looked at children raised by couples versus single parents. This is not a difficult concept, Alleged.
Now let's see those studies about straight marriage providing those benefits.
Now let's see those studies about straight marriage providing those benefits.
46
@41 No, I don't think that what I'm saying is offensive. If I did, I wouldn't have said it.
Disagreement in good faith cannot take place unless you understand me properly, and you don't seem to: I am not saying that marriage civilizes men but rather that the presence of women civilizes men. A wife is a source of female influence but she is not the only one. Gay men don't have to cram their lives full of women to catch up to straight men. Society does it for them. They're exposed to female relatives, coworkers, employees, bosses, customers, friends and celebrities, like non-homosexual men are. In modern times, a man interacts with many women over the course of his day on a variety of levels. This was not always so.
As for where gay men start out, they start out as boys. Their most important female influences at that time are mothers, sisters, teachers and classmates, just like other boys. Wives don't come into it until later.
Disagreement in good faith cannot take place unless you understand me properly, and you don't seem to: I am not saying that marriage civilizes men but rather that the presence of women civilizes men. A wife is a source of female influence but she is not the only one. Gay men don't have to cram their lives full of women to catch up to straight men. Society does it for them. They're exposed to female relatives, coworkers, employees, bosses, customers, friends and celebrities, like non-homosexual men are. In modern times, a man interacts with many women over the course of his day on a variety of levels. This was not always so.
As for where gay men start out, they start out as boys. Their most important female influences at that time are mothers, sisters, teachers and classmates, just like other boys. Wives don't come into it until later.
47
@41 Or, to be even clearer: NOM claims that marriage civilizes men, but, because it is really the presence of women that civilizes men and because society offers many sources of female influence, men who do not marry women REGARDLESS OF WHY THEY DO NOT MARRY WOMEN are not necessarily at significant risk of becoming uncivilized.
48
@47 Actually, the civilizing effect of heterosexual marriage on men is a matter of generally accepted scientific fact. For example researchers at Harvard Medical School concluded that:
"Unmarried, divorced, and widowed men don't eat as well as married men. They are less likely to exercise but are more likely to smoke, drink excessively, and engage in other risky behaviors. In contrast, married men are more likely to get regular medical care and to benefit from a higher standard of living."
You can read more about that here:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter…
and here:
http://scholar.harvard.edu/sampson/files…
The important question is whether same-sex unions provide similar social benefits. NOM would have us believe that they do not. Social scientists have remained largely silent on this issue because legally recognized same-sex unions haven't existed long enough for proper research to have been conducted.
"Unmarried, divorced, and widowed men don't eat as well as married men. They are less likely to exercise but are more likely to smoke, drink excessively, and engage in other risky behaviors. In contrast, married men are more likely to get regular medical care and to benefit from a higher standard of living."
You can read more about that here:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter…
and here:
http://scholar.harvard.edu/sampson/files…
The important question is whether same-sex unions provide similar social benefits. NOM would have us believe that they do not. Social scientists have remained largely silent on this issue because legally recognized same-sex unions haven't existed long enough for proper research to have been conducted.
49
@3 - it's only a valid point if allowing gay marriage somehow removes those protections, which it doesn't. Here's a similar argument: marriage between a man and a woman protects both partners in case of divorce by providing a legal framework for dividing assets - therefore gay marriage should be prohibited. Sound ridiculous to you? It should, because it is - the statement is true, but the conclusion is ridiculous.
Google "non-sequiter".
Google "non-sequiter".
50
45
If you don't know how many homosexual married couples were included in the study how can you possibly assert that the study demonstrates that homosexual married couples confer the same benefits that married heterosexual parents confer?
If you don't know how many homosexual married couples were included in the study how can you possibly assert that the study demonstrates that homosexual married couples confer the same benefits that married heterosexual parents confer?
52
@50: I can't, therefore I don't. Neither did Senator Franken. Because gay couples are lumped in with straight couples in its methodology, you can't draw any distinction between the two based on the study. You know, what I just said in #37.
This cuts both ways. You can't use the study to show that gay couples are as good as straight couples at parenting, but you can't show that they're NOT as good either. In the absence of evidence, we assume no effect and fail to reject the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on YOUR SIDE to prove that there is an effect.
It saddens me how much you claim to champion scientific honesty, but how little you actually understand of scientific methodology or statistical principles. Do you understand how a null hypothesis works?
This cuts both ways. You can't use the study to show that gay couples are as good as straight couples at parenting, but you can't show that they're NOT as good either. In the absence of evidence, we assume no effect and fail to reject the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on YOUR SIDE to prove that there is an effect.
It saddens me how much you claim to champion scientific honesty, but how little you actually understand of scientific methodology or statistical principles. Do you understand how a null hypothesis works?
54
Ms F - No, I did not misunderstand you at all. I never thought you were claiming the influence of "civilizing" for marriage. You clearly from the first assigned it to the presence of non-silent women, and that offended me, which is why I asked for a rephrase.
If you are absolutely committed to your idea, I only see three ways we can agree to disagree with good will. One is if, as I mentioned earlier, we acknowledge that we cannot come to terms on a working definition of "civilizing". That allows for a fair impasse. A second would be if you hold that men arrive at adulthood with their degree of civilization basically fixed and that it will not vary significantly past a certain point. The third, and it has just occurred to me, would be if you regard contact with women as if it were something like a vitamin with a Daily Minimum Requirement, and that most men meet the DMR regardless of whether they go home to a wife, a husband, multiple partners, none, or, just to cover all the bases, one or more partners of indeterminate gender.
Otherwise, I don't see how one avoids a lot of nasty conclusions. Accepting your premise, how could one avoid raising the bar a lot higher for single or coupled men to raise children. I shall not go on in this line, as I really do want to reach a point of agreeing to disagree with good will if at all possible.
Given considerable personal experience in the contrary direction, I doubt it would be possible for me to reach a point of agreement with your position. And from the way you keep popping it out as if it were as universally acknowledged a truth as the one that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife, I can't see you ever coming to agree with me.
But, even if I remain offended, I thank you for providing the opportunity for a bit of Austensplaining.
More...
If you are absolutely committed to your idea, I only see three ways we can agree to disagree with good will. One is if, as I mentioned earlier, we acknowledge that we cannot come to terms on a working definition of "civilizing". That allows for a fair impasse. A second would be if you hold that men arrive at adulthood with their degree of civilization basically fixed and that it will not vary significantly past a certain point. The third, and it has just occurred to me, would be if you regard contact with women as if it were something like a vitamin with a Daily Minimum Requirement, and that most men meet the DMR regardless of whether they go home to a wife, a husband, multiple partners, none, or, just to cover all the bases, one or more partners of indeterminate gender.
Otherwise, I don't see how one avoids a lot of nasty conclusions. Accepting your premise, how could one avoid raising the bar a lot higher for single or coupled men to raise children. I shall not go on in this line, as I really do want to reach a point of agreeing to disagree with good will if at all possible.
Given considerable personal experience in the contrary direction, I doubt it would be possible for me to reach a point of agreement with your position. And from the way you keep popping it out as if it were as universally acknowledged a truth as the one that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife, I can't see you ever coming to agree with me.
But, even if I remain offended, I thank you for providing the opportunity for a bit of Austensplaining.
55
52
The study includes "no" homosexual married couples.
Franken and you claim it includes them.
The study reveals things about the advantages of heterosexual married parents.
It reveals nothing about homosexual married parents.
The study includes "no" homosexual married couples.
Franken and you claim it includes them.
The study reveals things about the advantages of heterosexual married parents.
It reveals nothing about homosexual married parents.
56
#46 OMG I want so badly to be civilized. Bring on the women.
Here is the PERFECT Blame game, "When women are absent or silent, men become less civilized." Men have NO CHOICE but to become knuckle dragging louts if the women are not around. So when you see a down and out man, you know there is a woman to blame. Just like Eve, the cause of ALL earthly problems.
Here is the PERFECT Blame game, "When women are absent or silent, men become less civilized." Men have NO CHOICE but to become knuckle dragging louts if the women are not around. So when you see a down and out man, you know there is a woman to blame. Just like Eve, the cause of ALL earthly problems.
57
What's with the Australian accent in the ad? (At least it sounds Australian to me; I'm no accent expert. But it sure isn't Amurrican!)
58
@55: Cite your source for your assertion that it excludes same-sex couples.
The study doesn't say anything about gay couples or straight couples; it just makes a case that couples tend to be better parents than single mothers or fathers. And it's the anti-gay side that's been misrepresenting the evidence to push their own irrational agenda.
The study doesn't say anything about gay couples or straight couples; it just makes a case that couples tend to be better parents than single mothers or fathers. And it's the anti-gay side that's been misrepresenting the evidence to push their own irrational agenda.
59
Obviously you haven't even read the study.
It compared MARRIED couples to other family structures.
Don't come back until you have read it.
It compared MARRIED couples to other family structures.
Don't come back until you have read it.
60
@59: I read the study; did you?
It compared nuclear families to other arrangements. It defines a nuclear family as follows: "A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family."
Married gay couples with children can fit that definition, as Senator Franken rightly pointed out. It doesn't say anything about gay versus straight one way or the other; it just makes a case for familial cohesion.
Stop trying to make the evidence say what you want it to, and just look at what's actually the case.
It compared nuclear families to other arrangements. It defines a nuclear family as follows: "A nuclear family consists of one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all children in the family."
Married gay couples with children can fit that definition, as Senator Franken rightly pointed out. It doesn't say anything about gay versus straight one way or the other; it just makes a case for familial cohesion.
Stop trying to make the evidence say what you want it to, and just look at what's actually the case.
61
If I were to say "Men make women pull the sticks out of their prissy asses and stop being such a bunch of whining, harping bitches" I would rightly be called out for misogyny. Your formulation, DRF, is only a slightly more polite version of that statement. I find it both gender reductionist and generally offensive to men. You're welcome to argue in favor of your misandry, but so far I'm not impressed.
62
60
How many married homosexual couples were there in the United States when the study was conducted?
How many married homosexual couples were there in the United States when the study was conducted?
63
I don't much care for the phrase "agree to disagree." You don't need my permission to disagree with me.
I do not believe that men arrive at adulthood with their degree of civilized-ness essentially fixed.
For your vitamin analogy, I'd say that most men in the modern U.S. get their daily recommended intake regardless of whether they go home to a wife or work with women or just generally interact with women during the day. No I do not believe that exposure to men, regardless of the nature of the relationship, has the same effect as exposure to women. I suppose that living with a woman has more of an effect than interacting with women elsewhere.
I didn't say anything about couples' ability to raise children. I'm talking about whether the presence of women civilizes men.
@61 I didn't say anything about the effect of men on women, but girls in single-sex classes tend to speak more and get higher grades, so it's arguable that the presence of boys makes girls dumb themselves down and attempt to be more pleasing. I guess you could reduce that to "whining, harping bitches," but it might be more accurate to say that girls become less assertive.
I do not believe that men arrive at adulthood with their degree of civilized-ness essentially fixed.
For your vitamin analogy, I'd say that most men in the modern U.S. get their daily recommended intake regardless of whether they go home to a wife or work with women or just generally interact with women during the day. No I do not believe that exposure to men, regardless of the nature of the relationship, has the same effect as exposure to women. I suppose that living with a woman has more of an effect than interacting with women elsewhere.
I didn't say anything about couples' ability to raise children. I'm talking about whether the presence of women civilizes men.
@61 I didn't say anything about the effect of men on women, but girls in single-sex classes tend to speak more and get higher grades, so it's arguable that the presence of boys makes girls dumb themselves down and attempt to be more pleasing. I guess you could reduce that to "whining, harping bitches," but it might be more accurate to say that girls become less assertive.
64
DRF, I'm finding all this rather offensive too, and I'm a woman. Did you cite any backup for this opinion - it's a long thread, maybe I missed it. I'm not talking about the "married men tend to live longer and go to the dentist" stuff, but "civilizing", which I assume includes things like treating others with respect, following rules, etc.
My purely anecdotal observations on this are that it seems to hold true when we are talking about the very young, (but I wonder how much this has to do with *parents* having a civilizing effect on the very young, and girls tending to stay closer to their parents when they first leave home) but not to the fully adult. I've had some exposure to nearly wholly male environments - work camps in the bush - and they tend to quickly set up a society, with rules that most follow, that seem to fit the definition of 'civilized'. They are different from mixed or all female societies, yes, but not more barbaric once you get to know them.
My purely anecdotal observations on this are that it seems to hold true when we are talking about the very young, (but I wonder how much this has to do with *parents* having a civilizing effect on the very young, and girls tending to stay closer to their parents when they first leave home) but not to the fully adult. I've had some exposure to nearly wholly male environments - work camps in the bush - and they tend to quickly set up a society, with rules that most follow, that seem to fit the definition of 'civilized'. They are different from mixed or all female societies, yes, but not more barbaric once you get to know them.
65
@64 I'm thinking of things like pioneer situations before and after the arrival of "respectable" women. Women show up; the level of violence goes down. Men shift from anything-goes mode to what I'll shorthand as responsible mode.
66
@64 Married men are far less likely to commit crimes than unmarried men. This holds true for men in similar circumstances with respect to age, income, etc.
67
@62: No idea. It doesn't matter, though, since the study didn't look at gay couples versus straight couples.
68
Ms F - I find agreeing to disagree with good will rather useful; it means that we won't just resort to flinging labels even though we both acknowledge that neither is going to change the other's mind through weight of superiour argument.
Your example seems weak. First, my concern is explicitly with gay men in this conversation, and you deliberately select a concrete example from a period when there was no generally understood concept of homosexuality as a benign sexual orientation. Apples and oranges. You also appear to be lumping all men together while selecting a subgroup of women, unless you meant that all women would be considered "respectable." And you can't really say that gay men behaved better in such situations anyway. I could see straight men interested in the new arrivals acting in what they thought to be a woman-attracting way, but there are too many variables to examine given the weather threat.
As the storm is here and I may lose power at any moment, I shall be content for now with the example of, say, home-schooling. Suppose a male couple with a male child living in a hostile community decided to home-school; wouldn't that set off your alarm? It would also seem, at first thought, that there would be tons of data that two female parents vastly outperform two male parents, unless there's a point of diminishing returns, but I am rushing due to occasional power flickers in order to get this off, and my thoughts will be incomplete. I do apologize; please blame the weather.
I'm thinking of a hypothetical but I really have to get off line now. Sorry again.
Your example seems weak. First, my concern is explicitly with gay men in this conversation, and you deliberately select a concrete example from a period when there was no generally understood concept of homosexuality as a benign sexual orientation. Apples and oranges. You also appear to be lumping all men together while selecting a subgroup of women, unless you meant that all women would be considered "respectable." And you can't really say that gay men behaved better in such situations anyway. I could see straight men interested in the new arrivals acting in what they thought to be a woman-attracting way, but there are too many variables to examine given the weather threat.
As the storm is here and I may lose power at any moment, I shall be content for now with the example of, say, home-schooling. Suppose a male couple with a male child living in a hostile community decided to home-school; wouldn't that set off your alarm? It would also seem, at first thought, that there would be tons of data that two female parents vastly outperform two male parents, unless there's a point of diminishing returns, but I am rushing due to occasional power flickers in order to get this off, and my thoughts will be incomplete. I do apologize; please blame the weather.
I'm thinking of a hypothetical but I really have to get off line now. Sorry again.
69
@67
Disappointing, that.
But way too late to weasel out now.
Senator Chuckles insisted the study described homosexual marriages as well.
(You agreed)
He was actually a first rate asshole about it.
Asshole and Ignorant are a toxic brew.....
Let us help you out:
There were no homosexual marriages in the USA before 2004.
In mid 2004 Mass started, and about 6000 gay marriages were performed the rest of that year.
The years thereafter saw about a thousand a year; so about 7000 in 2005, 8000 in 2006 and 9000 by 2007.
The HHS study surveyed a quarter million families from 2001-2007.
There were about 55 million marriages in the nation those years.
(you may find a different figure but that is pretty close...)
So for the first 3 and a half years of the study there were ZERO married homosexual couples included and for the next four and a half years there were about 6-9,000 gay married couples in a pool of 55 MILLION heterosexual married couples.
Do you know what percentage 8,000 of 55,000,000 is?
We believe scientific geniuses like you call that 'statistically insignificant'.
So when Senator Bafoon insisted that the study included homosexual married couples he was blowing bullshit out his ass.
Perhaps you can explain it to him so he can apologize......
Disappointing, that.
But way too late to weasel out now.
Senator Chuckles insisted the study described homosexual marriages as well.
(You agreed)
He was actually a first rate asshole about it.
Asshole and Ignorant are a toxic brew.....
Let us help you out:
There were no homosexual marriages in the USA before 2004.
In mid 2004 Mass started, and about 6000 gay marriages were performed the rest of that year.
The years thereafter saw about a thousand a year; so about 7000 in 2005, 8000 in 2006 and 9000 by 2007.
The HHS study surveyed a quarter million families from 2001-2007.
There were about 55 million marriages in the nation those years.
(you may find a different figure but that is pretty close...)
So for the first 3 and a half years of the study there were ZERO married homosexual couples included and for the next four and a half years there were about 6-9,000 gay married couples in a pool of 55 MILLION heterosexual married couples.
Do you know what percentage 8,000 of 55,000,000 is?
We believe scientific geniuses like you call that 'statistically insignificant'.
So when Senator Bafoon insisted that the study included homosexual married couples he was blowing bullshit out his ass.
Perhaps you can explain it to him so he can apologize......
70
@69 Is the troll against gay marriage? What is the basis of his objection? I think we can all agree that the study troll and VL have been discussing doesn't tell us much of anything about same sex-couples.
71
@69: Are you mentally defective?
The study did not specifically include or exclude gays from any of its categories. NONE of its methodology or results had anything to do with sexual orientation. Like I've been saying, and like Senator Franken said, it doesn't say anything about gay couples versus straight couples. He never said, nor did I, that there were gay couples in the study sample, only that they would fall under the study's definition of "nuclear family".
I really don't understand why you can't seem to wrap your head around this. It's not difficult to comprehend. Perhaps you, like Tom Minnery, feel the need to put your words into the mouths of others rather than attempt to debate an issue on the facts of the matter.
The study did not specifically include or exclude gays from any of its categories. NONE of its methodology or results had anything to do with sexual orientation. Like I've been saying, and like Senator Franken said, it doesn't say anything about gay couples versus straight couples. He never said, nor did I, that there were gay couples in the study sample, only that they would fall under the study's definition of "nuclear family".
I really don't understand why you can't seem to wrap your head around this. It's not difficult to comprehend. Perhaps you, like Tom Minnery, feel the need to put your words into the mouths of others rather than attempt to debate an issue on the facts of the matter.
72
70
The Troll is in favor of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
Which studies show to be the most favorable circumstance under which to raise children.
The Troll is in favor of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.
Which studies show to be the most favorable circumstance under which to raise children.
73
@72:Do studies show that same-sex couples are not as good as opposite-sex couples at raising children? Because it seems like you've been saying that.
74
73
oh no ANOTHER epic reading comprehension fail.
Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is a Time Tested Proven Winner for Society.
Dilettantes who come along trying to change it to reflect their faddish whims have the burden of proof before they can expect Society to follow them over the ledge.
oh no ANOTHER epic reading comprehension fail.
Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is a Time Tested Proven Winner for Society.
Dilettantes who come along trying to change it to reflect their faddish whims have the burden of proof before they can expect Society to follow them over the ledge.
75
@71
more name calling?
we are going to have to cancel your subscription to MSNBC, it seems.
Let's roll the tape.....
>>>"FRANKEN: Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write, quote, “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here, from December 2010, to support this conclusion. I checked the study out. And I would like to enter it into the record if I may."
How about what Minnery said, VenomWhore?
Could one conclude from the HHS study that " “children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier ...."?
(remember how many heterosexual married couples were in the sample and how many homosexual married couples were in the sample before you answer....)
Are you familiar with the concept and phrase "Difference without a Distinction", VenomWhore?
Big Al is about to give us an example.....
>>>"FRANKEN: And it actually doesn’t say what you said it says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes."
(the record will note that the phrase "opposite sex married families" is actually Al's and not Mr Minnery's...)
OK, VenomWhore, help the Senator out.
In the HHS study as conducted is there any difference between the phrase 'nuclear family' and the description of those families as "“children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"?
Were any statistically significant number of the sample size NOT “children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"
OK.
Now Big Al indilges in some innane trivis.....
>>>"FRANKEN: Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?"
What is the point of that?
"NO" married same sex couple actually WERE in the study so why does Al bring it up, VenomWhore?
>>>"MINNERY: I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife."
Was Minnery right, VenomWhore?
In the cited HHS study does "nuclear family" = “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"?
You are a bright lad, VenomWhore.
Perhaps you can explain to Al that he was Wrong and as Asshole to boot.
Because here is Al's conclusion...
>>>"FRANKEN: It doesn’t... And I frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways."
More...
more name calling?
we are going to have to cancel your subscription to MSNBC, it seems.
Let's roll the tape.....
>>>"FRANKEN: Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write, quote, “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here, from December 2010, to support this conclusion. I checked the study out. And I would like to enter it into the record if I may."
How about what Minnery said, VenomWhore?
Could one conclude from the HHS study that " “children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier ...."?
(remember how many heterosexual married couples were in the sample and how many homosexual married couples were in the sample before you answer....)
Are you familiar with the concept and phrase "Difference without a Distinction", VenomWhore?
Big Al is about to give us an example.....
>>>"FRANKEN: And it actually doesn’t say what you said it says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes."
(the record will note that the phrase "opposite sex married families" is actually Al's and not Mr Minnery's...)
OK, VenomWhore, help the Senator out.
In the HHS study as conducted is there any difference between the phrase 'nuclear family' and the description of those families as "“children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"?
Were any statistically significant number of the sample size NOT “children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"
OK.
Now Big Al indilges in some innane trivis.....
>>>"FRANKEN: Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?"
What is the point of that?
"NO" married same sex couple actually WERE in the study so why does Al bring it up, VenomWhore?
>>>"MINNERY: I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife."
Was Minnery right, VenomWhore?
In the cited HHS study does "nuclear family" = “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"?
You are a bright lad, VenomWhore.
Perhaps you can explain to Al that he was Wrong and as Asshole to boot.
Because here is Al's conclusion...
>>>"FRANKEN: It doesn’t... And I frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways."
76
@65, 66 have you got any links to studies? @65, especially, you seem to be basing your argument on anecdotal evidence, so it's no more or less valid than my anecdotal evidence. The all male societies I know something about certainly don't look like mixed society - there's a hell of a lot less shaving, for one thing - but they do set up more or less voluntary rules of correct conduct and cooperation, which most follow. Isn't that a definition of civilization?
@75 "I would think that" does not mean "it is". It means "I'm guessing". He did not know the answer to the question. That entire passage you quoted reads to me as showing this study having as much to do with the issue of same sex households as one about, oh, how reading to your children improves school grades. The particular study wasn't studying same sex families, wasn't measuring same sex families, and tells us nothing about same sex families. It doesn't count as "one for your side" simply because it doesn't support the other side. It's irrelevant.
@75 "I would think that" does not mean "it is". It means "I'm guessing". He did not know the answer to the question. That entire passage you quoted reads to me as showing this study having as much to do with the issue of same sex households as one about, oh, how reading to your children improves school grades. The particular study wasn't studying same sex families, wasn't measuring same sex families, and tells us nothing about same sex families. It doesn't count as "one for your side" simply because it doesn't support the other side. It's irrelevant.
77
Please tell us ANY city, county or state that guarantees ANYONE the right to marry whom they LOVE.....Or that asks a couple if they are in LOVE when they marry.Probably about as many as ask them if they are biologically capable of, or have any intention toward, breeding. Seems that, from the state's view, marriage is wholly about the consolidation of resources. Actually, maybe not even that; I've never seen a marriage license that asked whether you intended to move in together, open a joint account, or share a vehicle.
In point of fact, most state marriage licenses require very little in terms of specifics.
Now, as to the social, psychological, or spiritual reasons that people decide to marry, I'd be curious to see how many successful marriages in the last century (or six; eros became, at least in literature and art, the foundation of marriage sometime around the Renaissance) were not entered into for love . . . and of those who weren't, how many were successful precisely because of any infidelities (that is, if there's no eros in the marriage, mightn't one seek this very basic human interest--one might say "need"--elsewhere?).
78
@74: CLEARLY, you do not understand how statistics works. You ALWAYS assume no effect, that the test condition has no difference in effect from the standard condition, as your null hypothesis. Then you see if you have enough evidence to reject the null in favor of an alternative hypothesis.
Under our legal system, men and women are considered equal. Since marriage is a civil institution in this country, there is no legal difference between a marriage consisting of two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If you want to draw some distinction, you need to bring evidence; otherwise you're violating the Equal Protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
@75: Yes, the study didn't include gay families. THEREFORE, you can't draw any conclusions either way about the quality of gay parenting. Senator Franken said that Minnery was being misleading, which he was; Minnery implied that the study had found gay parenting inferior, which it had not.
It's not hard to understand, which leads me to believe that you simply don't want to understand it. Perhaps your small mind is not ready for the truth...
Under our legal system, men and women are considered equal. Since marriage is a civil institution in this country, there is no legal difference between a marriage consisting of two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If you want to draw some distinction, you need to bring evidence; otherwise you're violating the Equal Protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
@75: Yes, the study didn't include gay families. THEREFORE, you can't draw any conclusions either way about the quality of gay parenting. Senator Franken said that Minnery was being misleading, which he was; Minnery implied that the study had found gay parenting inferior, which it had not.
It's not hard to understand, which leads me to believe that you simply don't want to understand it. Perhaps your small mind is not ready for the truth...
79
78
What part of Minnery's assertion, that “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.” is not supported by the HHS study he cites?
What part of Minnery's assertion, that “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.” is not supported by the HHS study he cites?
80
Perhaps those positing that there is a qualitative difference in outcomes between those reared by straight parents vs. those reared by gay parents ought to try talking to those of us who were, ya know, ACTUALLY brought up by gay parents. We do exist. I'm 53 years old, and I was brought up by my mother and her girlfriend. But no, they'd rather pull fake anecdotes out of their ass than actually try talking to those of us who can actually speak to the experience.
FWIW, the only harm I came to from my upbringing is all directly related to the fact that my parents could not marry.
FWIW, the only harm I came to from my upbringing is all directly related to the fact that my parents could not marry.
81
@78: The part where he uses that as an argument against gay marriage, which the study did not address. That's why I called it "misleading" rather than a flat-out lie.
So far you've managed to prove that one example of studies being misused/misinterpreted by anti-gay politicians is really just a case of the argument being misleading, not actually false. Well done.
So far you've managed to prove that one example of studies being misused/misinterpreted by anti-gay politicians is really just a case of the argument being misleading, not actually false. Well done.
82
@68 In U.S. pioneer situations, "respectable women" is a euphemism for "white women who aren't prostitutes." Prostitutes had little control over their situation or their customers, and non-white women would've have been considered part of the same culture/civilization as the men in my example (by those men).
In my experience, "Let's agree to disagree" means "I am tired of talking about this, so YOU must shut up." I don't think you should have to shut up at my whim. You don't need my permission to post or not post on any subject.
@76 I hold an advanced degree in history. This isn't anecdotal so much as a pattern that has repeated itself. Men move out by themselves and behave wildly. When women move in, the men's behavior changes.
The presence of women does have a civilizing effect on men, but I do not maintain it is the only civilizing influence on men. The presence of a goal or outside pressure that necessitates discipline is another.
In my experience, "Let's agree to disagree" means "I am tired of talking about this, so YOU must shut up." I don't think you should have to shut up at my whim. You don't need my permission to post or not post on any subject.
@76 I hold an advanced degree in history. This isn't anecdotal so much as a pattern that has repeated itself. Men move out by themselves and behave wildly. When women move in, the men's behavior changes.
The presence of women does have a civilizing effect on men, but I do not maintain it is the only civilizing influence on men. The presence of a goal or outside pressure that necessitates discipline is another.
83
DRF, are you sure you have the causal arrow going the right way? It might be that when men stop behaving wildly, women move in.
84
Ms F - First moment able to post since the storm, and I shall be only on at the library in short spurts for the foreseeable future.
You get to select *which* women have such a "civilizing" effect while still implying that it applies equally to All Men? Sorry, sunshine, that dog is a pacifist and refuses to hunt. It's a neat trick; by not specifying you get to conflate Men as a Whole (IF your point is true, and we still have not yet settled on a definition of "civilized" - on that score I refuse to accept any straight definition, so that we may come to an impassable barrier on that beginning point) with All Men, and almost my whole point is that the two are not conflatable.
And you are still just repeating your mantra as if it were a Truth Universally Acknowledged. Your conclusion of 82 appears to be a bit of backtracking, or at least bet-hedging, or possibly trying to have all cakes and eat them too. But, as the point of maintaining a disagreement WITH GOOD WILL (which you left out of your paragraph on agreeing to disagree), I am running out of things to say, as I am not going to resort to name calling.
Trying to find a point of civil discussion, it might advance the conversation for me to ask why you think gay and straight men won't get different results in this particular measurement. It's not as if we're exactly identical in all other situations and circumstances.
You get to select *which* women have such a "civilizing" effect while still implying that it applies equally to All Men? Sorry, sunshine, that dog is a pacifist and refuses to hunt. It's a neat trick; by not specifying you get to conflate Men as a Whole (IF your point is true, and we still have not yet settled on a definition of "civilized" - on that score I refuse to accept any straight definition, so that we may come to an impassable barrier on that beginning point) with All Men, and almost my whole point is that the two are not conflatable.
And you are still just repeating your mantra as if it were a Truth Universally Acknowledged. Your conclusion of 82 appears to be a bit of backtracking, or at least bet-hedging, or possibly trying to have all cakes and eat them too. But, as the point of maintaining a disagreement WITH GOOD WILL (which you left out of your paragraph on agreeing to disagree), I am running out of things to say, as I am not going to resort to name calling.
Trying to find a point of civil discussion, it might advance the conversation for me to ask why you think gay and straight men won't get different results in this particular measurement. It's not as if we're exactly identical in all other situations and circumstances.
85
I forgot to add yesterday that this seems highly appropriate for Seattle, as it seems to refer directly to Here Come the Brides. But I am still thinking along the lines of wondering why something that might have been so at one point in time necessarily has to be What Was in the Beginning, Is Now, and Ever Shall Be.
86
"It's more accurate to say that the presence of women civilizes men."
Ever seen a women's public restroom?
DRF you're an idiot.
Ever seen a women's public restroom?
DRF you're an idiot.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (86) RSS