Archive for Saturday, June 30, 2007

Marriage values

June 30, 2007


To the editor:

Why do many state and federal officials feel it necessary to define and legislate what marriage is? I've heard the argument that legal recognition of same-sex marriage threatens the moral foundation of traditional marriage. Who would be threatened, and in what way, exactly?

Opponents state that legalizing gay marriage would erode traditional family values. It appears those values are already eroding, and from within. They often fail to include that nearly one-half of traditional marriages end in divorce within seven years, and more than a million wives are brutalized by their husbands every day in their arguments.

I'm not saying that same-sex couples would be immune to the sad statistics of domestic violence and divorce that traditional married couples face. Yet those opposing same-sex marriage omit these unflattering aspects, while touting traditional marriage as the American moral gold standard. This disingenuous apples-and-oranges comparison is simply thinly veiled intolerance.

Legislators donning the morality police badge conveniently ignore the infidelity, corruption and other abuses within their own ranks, while teaching us the definition of what "real values" are. Pay no attention to the congressmen behind the curtain stuffing cash in the freezer, text-messaging naughty messages to pages and having affairs. Move along, citizens. There's nothing to see here.

These shining, stalwart definers of virtue and defenders of our collective morality need to see to their own houses before they set about legislating just how others are to keep theirs. Such blatant hypocrisy, intolerance and bigotry make those badges look a lot less shiny.

Steve Craven,



jonas 10 years ago

Right-Thinker: Errrr, to do things that actually benefit our nation? Is this a trick question? Do you want another answer?

imastinker 10 years ago

Do legislators really do things that benefit us?

blackwalnut 10 years ago

"If the blue states are sinkholes of moral decay, as right-wing pundits insist, how come red states lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarceration, among other evils? "

That's from Red State Babylon, an article in Vanity Fair, about those statistics:

mr_economy 10 years ago

The state has no business being involved with marriage, period. Marriage is a religious ceremony, traditionally as a covenant between a man, a woman, and god. All that is fine and dandy, but has nothing to do with the state.

States confer civil unions, period. These benefits are more contractual in nature than religious, and must be treated as such. Likewise, the 14th Amendment commands equal protection under the laws. Thus, if heterosexual couples may obtain civil recognition and benefits for a union, so too may homosexual couples. This is why conservatives were/are in such a panic about passing the first and only targeted discrimination Amendment to our Constitution. They know it is not long before the Supreme Court hears the magic argument. Even though they now feel smug with their supposed conservative majority on the Court, they quickly forget that Justice Kennedy, the new moderate-conservative swing vote, wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, and is more liberal than conservative on the issue of gay rights.

They are also frightened because they know that once the public sees "gay marriage" in Massachusetts and civil unions in Vermont without the world coming to a fiery end, they will realize just how moronic it is to let a 2,000+ year old system of mythology trump our own Constitution.

imastinker 10 years ago

I don't think that is part of their job description. I guess if they help keep me from having too much money that's a good thing. I love paying half my money to the state.

jonas 10 years ago

You, who would prefer to have legislators that legislate exclusively for the right? Give me a break.

sourpuss 10 years ago

I don't really care what people do as long as they don't bother me or anyone else with it. It is no business of mine.

I find it funny that the "small government" Republicans are the first to push the government into our business, determining who we're sleeping with, how we're sleeping with them, etc. If two people want to be in a civil union, what business is it of anyone else?

Basically, I think some people are just mean and need to feel superior by putting and keeping others who are not like them down. So sad.

Oracle_of_Rhode 10 years ago

Massachusetts, where gay civil marriage has been in effect for three years, has the lowest divorce rate in the United Sates. Other states with progressive laws allowing civil unions enjoy similarly LOW rates of divorce. That's a FACT, friends.

The out-of-town conservatard trolls who post their hate here daily will reject facts that conflict with their ideologically-polluted caveman fantasy outlook. But its true anyway. Just Google state divorce rates.

And the Bible belt, where gays have the least chance of getting the right to the pursuit of happiness embodied in civil unions, has the highest divorce rates in the nation.

Good LTE!

jonas 10 years ago

"spywell (Anonymous) says:

Divorce, rates are higher in the midwest because incomes are lower and good jobs are scarce."

You know that for a fact? Incomes are lower, but so is the cost of living. I think you're just hypothesizing.

"Besides, ever tried to get a divorce in New York, or any east coast state. The many midwest states has no-fault divorce statues, in the east coast, getting a divorce is much harder and costly."

Couldn't that be interpreted that east coast states have a greater to desire to preserve the sanctity of marriage?

. . . not that I think it should. But it could.

Oracle_of_Rhode 10 years ago

spywell, you're hilarious. According to your own theory, if incomes are higher on the coasts, and divorces are more costly -- as you say -- then those higher incomes would negate the statistical effects of higher costs on divorce rates.

And your no-fault divorce argument is utter BS too. In fact, Massachusetts permits no-fault divorce based on irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage. And it has the lowest divorce rates in the nation, AND gay marriage.

Sorry, bigotry can't trump facts.

Steve Jacob 10 years ago

The more money you make, the more likley of an affair/divorce. China has had a boom of divorce since men have been getting rich.

jonas 10 years ago

srj: Where did you read that? I'd be interested to take a look. Somehow, I find it difficult to believe that men here in China can afford to be that picky. I suppose it's possible that the initiative is coming from the other direction, too. Anyway, if you have a link I'd appreciate it.

Richard Heckler 10 years ago

Why do wealthy gentlemen have more affairs?

I_Bejewel 10 years ago

merrill (Anonymous) says:

Why do wealthy gentlemen have more affairs?

Because it takes a lot of money to support a wife and a mistress?

Jamesaust 10 years ago

r_t: "The left would like to have legislators that legislate exclusively for the left".

Sorry but manipulating government policy as a means of sociological control even of the most intimate of human connections is a hallmark of the "left." Adopting neutral government policies and refusing to interject government into private affairs is a hallmark of the "right."

This issue didn't arise from the radical left crowd of free-wheeling hippies questioning societal values and condemning institutions like marriage as tools of a repressive, patriarchal structure; no - it came out of the most conservative instincts of solid, middle-class, salt of the earth couples who were already living the commitment as well as possible absent government's contribution (civil marriage) to the endeavor.

So, why are some parts of the "right" so "left" on this issue?

Two adults present themselves, prepared to commit to mutual support and aid, both in good mind and acting voluntarily, neither already committed to another - what more would a government neutral among all its citizens and treating all equitably need to know?

(Especially, as has been well documented, that these parts of the "right" are used to gain political power while in reality they are mocked and disregarded by those who they elect? Pat Robertson didn't notice the snickers as he leaves the Oval Office and the uproarious laughter right after the door closes? Karl Rove and pals don't give a hoot personally about this issue; they just view it as a means to get the 'rednecks' and the 'hayseeds' to put them into positions of political power.)

coneflower 10 years ago

This is all a tempest in a teapot, and fifty years from now, everyone will see it that way.

Jamesaust 10 years ago

"This disingenuous apples-and-oranges comparison is simply thinly veiled intolerance."

A slightly different take is that it highlights one of the core 'flaws' of a democratic system - the abusive unfairness that caused the Ancients to term democracy among the WORST forms of government: the majority legislating for the minority.

Here, gays represent the ultimate minority, one that can never become a majority and whose individual members cannot move to the majority: those who aren't gay aren't going to become gay. (Nor visa versa:,0,1590125.story?coll=la-home-local ) In contrast, those factors that REALLY destroy marriage - infidelity, divorce, lack of commitment - ARE factors that people who are or may become married COULD see themselves as opting for and so are determined to reserve that option for themselves. (Louisiana a decade ago adopted a choice of marriage options - one, allowing for 'no fault' divorce and, another, making divorce all but impossible. Guess which one most 'God fearing' Louisianans opt for. Go ahead, guess!)

Proof? The single greatest action voters could take to preserve marriage would be to ban divorce. The single least-likely measure to be approved by voters: banning divorce. Q.E.D. The decline of the family is just like the weather - everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it.

mick 10 years ago

"Who would be threatened and in what way exactly?" If homosexuals want to call what they do behind closed doors "marriage" that's just very hunky dory. The problem is it doesn't stop there. As I've seen admitted on these blogs before, "This is just a start." What next? Well, it's about desensitizing our youth against the natural human aversion to homosexual behavior. It's about the recruitment of our youth into the homosexual lifestyle when they are at a vulnerable age. Then what? It will still be "this is just a start."

deec 10 years ago

Some gay couples would like the legal protection of civil recognition of their partnerships, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. Gay males (which seem to be the issue for many posters here) don't do anything in bed that many straight people don't do. How exactly are gay people supposed to "recruit" young people to be aroused by a gender that does not arouse them? What exactly do you mean by "the homosexual lifestyle?" There is no "natural human aversion" to homosexuality, if one is homosexual. Elsewise there would not have been homosexuals throughout history and throughout the animal kingdom.

EXks 10 years ago

It's about the recruitment of our youth into the homosexual lifestyle when they are at a vulnerable age. Then what? It will still be "this is just a start."

Ah, "recruitment??" Hmmm, if you want to talk "recruitment" and "desensitizing our youth," the long sleazy tentacles of organized christianity take the cake on recruitment of youth and brain washing.

blackwalnut 10 years ago

mick: "It's a start..."

Talk about freaking about over nothing! I am the one who posted that:

People on this forum quoted it ad nauseum and posed it as meaning something totally different from what I posted by taking it out of context. I've reread my post and in context the meaning is clear:

It is a start for giving gays some rights the rest of us enjoy. The ultimate goal would be for gays to have the same rights as everyone else to a union that provides some legal and financial benefits, and all the responsibilities. Nothing more.

Your freaky fears about "desensitizing our youth" and "recruitment" are just loony. Others have suggested "it's a start" meant the ultimate goal was man/dog unions, or whatever.

Are you really this afraid of nothing? Are you really such a tool of the politicians who want to use this issue to freak you out and gain your support so they can further their real agenda? Don't you know this is just a wedge issue to them, that they can use by spreading these irrational fears among those gullible enough to believe them?

Nobody wants to recruit homosexuals. It isn't actually possible.

If "desensitizing our youth" means eliminating bigotry, then, hell yes, that would be a nice (if unlikely) side effect of legalizing unions - and you would be wrong to oppose that. Reducing bigotry is never wrong.

Jamesaust 10 years ago

I'm certain the gay community welcomes people like "mick" as well as Fred Phelps and others. Such types make the most persuasive arguments to the public at large FOR tolerance and understanding of others.

If "mick" is the argument against marriage rights for gays, count me persuaded in favor of such rights.

RKLOG 10 years ago

marriage is something that you feel on the inside, not something that you wear on your finger.

pelliott 10 years ago

Who would be threatened, and in what way, exactly?

Never a clear answer from the homophobs. If your marraige is only defined by the sex then that is your business but imo sad. Good luck in the years to come. If your values and family behavoirs requires there being no homosexuals and if there are that they are denied a right to marry or live unharassed, sad. Also doomed, not homosexuality but your family. Doomed. My family happily is based on love and well, supper.laundry, stuff like that. We will make it through even if conservatives marry into our family. We are lucky. Don't learn to read, who knows what you might read, could be anything.

erod0723 10 years ago

Right_Thinker, "They ain't no bigotry like the bigotry boiling from the left. Get real.

The left is a laugh-every sane mind in this great nation knows it."

H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E. What's that spell? Hypocrite.

camper 10 years ago

Most men are attracted to women. Most women are attracted to men. This is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be. Why do we concern ourselves with same-sex marriage? It will always be a miniscule factor and it does not stir much fear within me. Don't know why this is even an issue. Aren't their bigger fish to fry? Can't see the forest for the trees?

camper 10 years ago

Right thinker. Why do you always minimalize things as left and right? Is it because most right fielders generally have better throwing arms and can make the throw to home better? Left fielders generally are in the lineup because they hit for higher average.

camper 10 years ago

Mick, do you really think people will change their preference based on public policy or influence? I don't. Men like women. Women like men. Nothing is going to ever change this.

jonas 10 years ago

"RKLOG (Anonymous) says:

marriage is something that you feel on the inside, not something that you wear on your finger."

Actually, that's called love. Marriage (at least right now) is a piece of paper the government gives you that legally and officially recognizes you and your partner as one entity. Nothing more, nothing less.

"camper (Anonymous) says:

Right thinker. Why do you always minimalize things as left and right?"

Because that's all he has to offer. Why do you think?

camper 10 years ago

Jonas, I meant no disrespect to right thinker. I think he/she has a valid point. I just think same-sex marriage will never materialize into a significant problem. Good observations come from both the left and right. But I won't allign myself with either.

camper 10 years ago

Mick, we know who we are; our preferences are already decided. Why must we always bring public policy into such issues. The tree growing outside my door is growing just fine....despite public policy. This whole issue should be left alone.

Remember: Men like women, women like men.

DaveR 10 years ago

The question is why government regulates marriage. Every now & then we should take hoary old things out for a test drive, but it seems that's exactly what isn't being done. So a review:

Marriage legalizes sex between two people. As such, it legalizes their offspring. Which can be important when it's time to start doling out the inheritance.

Marriage makes it a lot easier to get child support. Yeah, you can get the money even if you were only shacked up, but it's lots harder.

Marriage gives the partners certain quasi-legal rights. If I find my best friend in bed with my wife, and if I shoot one or both of them, that can be justifiable homicide.

The state defines who you can't marry. Can't marry a parent, a grandparent, a child or a grandchild. Can't marry a brother or sister, aunt or uncle, nephew or niece. Some places you can marry a cousin, some you can't. I've yet to hear what gays think about this, and I'd like to, since gays are infertile by definition. It would be nice to know what new rules gays might propose. A male can marry any of his male relatives? Why the heck not?

Since the state marries 'em, the state divorces 'em. In divorce, the state doesn't care what becomes of the marriage exemption on the 1040 or if you will have visitation rights if the ex is in hospital. The state will oversee the disposition of jointly owned real property (eg, a house), but it really doesn't care one way or the other. The state's primary interest is with the children.

The state, which is made up of people, has a natural interest in families with minors that may, from time to time, break up. Since gays are infertile, gays do not have children. Gays want to play house? Sure. The state does not care who plays house. No free state deals with the trivial. The trivial is, well, trivial. Repressive regimes, on the other hand, care a lot about trivialities. Repressive states care a lot about where you cross the street (jaywalking) or what letters you may have on your t-shirt or what words you might hear uttered on TV, or that they are being "fair" to every special interest group that crosses its door.

You will gather that I am opposed to gay adoption, as I am opposed to surrogate mothers, and for the same reason: It's bad for the kids. A show of hands, all those who wished their parents were of the same sex, or that their mother was not really their mother.

Back in the late '70's I attended some of the early gay dances at KU. Back then, it was, Try it, you might like it. Maybe you're not "gay" but hey, you could always be bi. Bi opens you to a lot of new possibilities. Like three in a bed. A lot of people did this. Some liked it. Some didn't. I am so relieved this idiocy has now been proven to be a physical, scientific impossibility. I eagerly look forward to the next idiocy.

jonas 10 years ago

"You will gather that I am opposed to gay adoption, as I am opposed to surrogate mothers, and for the same reason: It's bad for the kids. A show of hands, all those who wished their parents were of the same sex, or that their mother was not really their mother."

Errrr. . . how would your second sentence result in proving your first? If you want to prove it, do a study on kids raised by two same sex parents and find the correlation. Some have been done already, I believe, that show that there is none. Still open for debate, but don't think that you have the answer when it's pretty clear that you don't.

"I am so relieved this idiocy has now been proven to be a physical, scientific impossibility."

What, being bi or having three people in a bed. The former has not been proven, the latter, I assure you, is both physically and scientifically possible.

EXks 10 years ago

You will gather that I am opposed to gay adoption, as I am opposed to surrogate mothers, and for the same reason: It's bad for the kids

Where is your EVIDENCE to support such an illogical statement?? What century does your brain think it is????

kansas778 10 years ago

It's funny when people on the left don't understand the facts they are using. Saying that Massachusetts passed gay marriage but has the lowest divorce rate doesn't mean anything considering they've had the lowest divorce rate for YEARS!! Don't you people even think to check this out? Another thing you don't realize is that this is the rate of divorce per 1000 PEOPLE not per 1000 MARRIAGES. Since the ratio of marriages is lower in "blue" states, one would only naturally believe that the number of divorces would be less as well. Leave facts for the conservatives, you lefties are better off with the emotional appeals.

kansas778 10 years ago

Another thing about studies that say kids raised by same-sex parents do just as well as other kids that the lefties don't know, is that the same-sex parents in these studies are most often white and affluent. Stacking the deck a bit?

EXks 10 years ago

Hetero divorce rates have NO relevancy to the concept of same sex marriage equality.

EXks 10 years ago

Another thing about studies that say kids raised by same-sex parents do just as well as other kids that the lefties don't know, is that the same-sex parents in these studies are most often white and affluent. Stacking the deck a bit?

So, are you saying that ethnic same-sex parents can't raise children in a valid, loving and caring environment??? What kind of STUPID statement is that!!

jonas 10 years ago

"kansas778 (Anonymous) says:

It's funny when people on the left don't understand the facts they are using. Saying that Massachusetts passed gay marriage but has the lowest divorce rate doesn't mean anything considering they've had the lowest divorce rate for YEARS!! "

So what your saying is that it hasn't had any effect at all, right? I thought that was what free marriage proponents have been saying all along. Are you agreeing with them, then?

"Don't you people even think to check this out? Another thing you don't realize is that this is the rate of divorce per 1000 PEOPLE not per 1000 marriages. Since the ratio of marriages is lower in "blue" states, one would only naturally believe that the number of divorces would be less as well. Leave facts for the conservatives, you lefties are better off with the emotional appeals."

Errrr, as opposed to "facts" dredged up to questionably support emotional appeals? Your facts, even if true in the broad sense that you proclaim, still don't support any real conclusion that it seems you are trying to make. The lower rate of marriage in blue states could just as easily be taken that blue states value the institution of marriage by finding the right match and then sticking with it, while folk in red states jump into it without thought or consideration for its sanctity, and then back out when they find it's not what they were looking for. Again, not that it should. Random statistics on thier own don't mean crap.

jonas 10 years ago

I should add that the notion that divorce rates have anything to do with political inclination is likely a load of garbage, but you all probably already knew that.

kansas778 10 years ago

EXks, I'm saying that at all. What I am saying is that these "studies" are cherry-picking certain same-sex couples so as to get the best results. The conclusion may or may not be valid, but the study is completely invalid.

Jonas, what I'm saying is that these "facts" don't mean what these people suggest that they do. That Massachusetts has a low divorce rate (per 1000 people) was being offered as evidence for all kinds of things. In truth, per 1000 marriages, both the "red" and the "blue" states have high divorce and low divorce states. The only conclusions I was making was that this evidence is clearly questionable and does not support what these people have been saying. I question how thoroughly they actually look at these facts before they go off spouting this and that about what they mean.

jonas 10 years ago

Yes, I would question that as well. I would, also, tend to answer that: no, they don't. They do a google search to find something quick to back their arguments with statistics, and then go haring off with it. Your position on all of that's fine.

But. . . when you say "Leave facts for the conservatives, you lefties are better off with the emotional appeals," you are, to my mind, immediately discredited, because that's simply false, and it's rediculous to make that assertion.

I've agreed with your basic assertion, because it's pretty much true. I highly suggest you agree with mine, because it is, too.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

And, of course, that does absolutely nothing to disprove MY point that you exhibited a pretty jarring blindspot by claiming that conservatives are the only ones to use facts and, by my admitted assumption, are not guilty of the use of emotional arguments in their place. The point you conveniently sidetracked in your clever (cough) counterattack on my. . . whatever.

I'm even giving you wiggle room. You can dig your way out! C'mon!

kansas778 10 years ago

LOL, "immediately discredited." Well Jonas, the fact that you use bogus facts to support your arguments means you are immediately discredited. But that just goes with being a liberal, facts only get in your way. That's why you should just forget the facts because you'll embarrass yourself every time and leave them to the conservatives.

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

I did refer to them and debunk them. These studies cherry pick certain types of gay couples to get the best results.

Conservatives aren't the only ones to use facts, they are the only ones who should, because they tend to support their arguments.

Jamesaust 10 years ago

Funny. I sit down to read a bit in this week's "The Economist" and what do I find?

Kansas is in the "top 10" states for the growth of same-sex couples. I for one am not surprised. The last census - 8 years old by now - showed that EVERY county in Kansas had at least one same-gendered couple (and Kansas has a lot of tiny, unpopulated, rural counties).

As I noted earlier, this topic is marked not by its radical break with the past but the "bourgeois" nature of boring, conservative couples to lead quiet lives in suburban ranch houses and garden.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

kansas: Who used what now? Think back carefully. And you further cement yourself by calling me a liberal. It means you either have no idea what you're talking about, and are jumping to conclusions due to the simple fact that I'm setting myself against you, or that you have a bias yourself far enough to view anyone to the left of you as leftist, because only a fool would look at my posting history and call me a leftist. I don't know your history at all, so I'll refrain from making any more generalization, but I feel free to make that one because it's always been true, with the subset of the forum, liberal and conservative alike, that use political names to immediately demean opposition in order to feel better about their very weak positioning.

At any rate, I wanted to determine whether you were passing out names once in a fit or ardor, and were usually capable of conversing, or were just a whining gasbag with a few google-searched fact-discreditors and a lot of labeling. Thanks for answering my question. Now I can feel free to simply laugh at you from now on.

Kim Gouge 9 years, 12 months ago

Mick said "It's about the recruitment of our youth into the homosexual lifestyle when they are at a vulnerable age. Then what? It will still be "this is just a start."

That might be the funniest thing I've ever heard / read. Thanks Mick...that was hilarious.

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Jonas: "If you want to prove it, do a study on kids raised by two same sex parents and find the correlation. Some have been done already, I believe, that show that there is none."


jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

Q.E.D. what? I don't seem to recall you debunking those studies either, or even referring to them before now. I think you probably just settled on that after you lashed out me for my views on marriage and then realized that you assumed those, and had to go with this to not seem like a fool, but I don't really mind. You'll also notice that, unlike others, I tend to qualify my assertions when referring to things that I possess less than perfect knowledge about. So I'm not sure what you claim that your point is. I doubt you even know.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago


That's some interesting calculus you got there. We could call it Fx (ks778) by which 70,000 equals four.

My god, it's a statistical breakthrough! Fascinating.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

Marion:"Try reading my posts!" Not that I can really talk myself, but all 7500 of them? Can you give us a "best of" compilation? Or arrange them topically for us?

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

Ahh, I read your profile and I see. You just simply saying something is your idea of debunking things. Interesting to know, as its really the same behavior as you criticize the liberals for. But I guess I did miss your reference, so I apologize for that. It was a long thread.

At any rate, I disagree that your assertions prove anything at all about how well kids do under gay-marriage. And you notice I didn't say that they did do any better or worse, I said that there was no proven correlation. Meaning that it, statistically, doesn't make a difference. If you think that's false, for the reasons you gave, you have to assume that the researchers did not screen for factors such as affluence. Not knowing about particular studies, but knowing about the general application of the scientific method for such purposes in a general sense, that would be one of the factors that most would automatically focus on. At any rate, I don't think you really know that one way or the other. Am I wrong?

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

In addition, without you citing the sources for your knowledge of this, we have no idea how non-biased your knowledge base is. Given your posting history, at least on this thread, I would be more wary of you cherry-picking facts, or being spoon-fed facts cherry picked by others, than I would be of a study done in a more-or-less scientific setting. Your bias is fairly obvious.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

greyheim: I've been trying to make that point for a day now. It's not gonna sink in, I think. Still, it's been fun trying.

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

You got me: "Your bias is fairly obvious." That's right, I'm a conservative. How'd you ever figure that one out?

"In addition, without you citing the sources for your knowledge of this, we have no idea how non-biased your knowledge base is" Sooooo, you can claim that "studies" support your argument without a source, but I've got to give you a bibliography?

"you have to assume that the researchers did not screen for factors such as affluence" No, they did screen for such factors, that's the problem.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

Well, this is like trying to explain things to a willful child, isn't it?

I figured out your bias by the rediculous and provably untrue things that you say, that only someone with your particular bias would say. I'm glad you admit to being biased, though. It saves having to wade through denial.

By screening for affluence, I meant in comparison to children raised by heterosexual couples, so as to compare like things. As I said, it is highly likely that this was, in fact, done, should they have gone by standard discipline. In that, I am forced by my lack of knowledge to assume, but I have no fear in stating that so are you. But, really, the issue of affluence is a red-herring. There is no doubt a correlation between affluence level and child adjustment, but that is a totally separate factor from what's under discussion. The whole idea is the notion of homosexuality being a factor can be tabled, and then things that should be worried about, such as poverty on the adjustment of children, can be addressed without additional smoke-screens. And if it is simply true, as you say, that gay families tend to be more affluent, thus (chuckle) "stacking the deck," then what of it? The bottom line would seem to be that the kids themselves are well off, and the kids welfare is what matters, right, not pushing a particular agenda?


By the way, It appears from my cursory online search that the most recent study findings were by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2002 and covered 70,000 same sex "families," and found no correlation. It's not a particularly large sample size, but it's certainly not a small enough one to justify a likely label of "cherry picking."

Now, why don't you tell us where you got the (cough) "fact" that families were cherry picked.

You should just save yourself the time, by the way, and admit that you, and conservatives in general, are just as bad as anyone else about using incomplete facts, using hysterical arguments that don't convey any really meaning, cherry-picking information based on confirmation bias, and relying on second-hand knowledge to make points. I won't think any less of you, as it is, after all, just an internet forum. Your continued jumping and dodging around just makes you look silly.

But it's your call. I will be asleep for the next seven hours though, as it's midnight here. But I'll be sure to check when I wake up.

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Jonas, I imagine this the particular study you are referring to:

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344


Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents Ellen C. Perrin, MD and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health

Now it says 2002, and it's the AAP so I'm pretty sure this is the one you are referring to. Here's a direct quote from the document as posted on the aap website: "The small and nonrepresentative samples studied and the relatively young age of most of the children suggest some reserve."

They go on to say that this doesn't matter because there are other studies which said the same thing. Now obviously this should be a concern because they aren't using representative samples in their own studies (cherry picking). Relying on these "other studies" to shore up the lack of representative sampling is not an accurate way of reducing errors in the study. Also, they incorrectly reference an alarming 57 percent of its scientific literature (this is from Dr. Sharon Quick's testimony in an Iowa court case where they discuss this specific literature, which has, unfortunately, been used to make policy. She is a pediatric care physician). So you have misgathered, and misrepresented evidence. Completely bogus, agenda-driven research.

But after all, I'm just a silly child, what do I know?

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Defender, care to elaborate? Clearly this research is agenda-driven and used bogus methodology in order to achieve desired results. Now unless you have something to say that is contrary to this, I suggest you put your hand back down and let the adults finish talking.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

Hmmmm.. . . you must have found. . . .

. . . this article.
I like this part. "These errors spread through a Policy Statement (2002) and Special Article entitled, "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-Being of Children," (2006) both printed in Pediatrics. The section on "gay and lesbian parents and their children" in the Special Article drew about half of its information and conclusions from the Technical Report, replicating quotation errors, and so heaping inaccuracy upon inaccuracy. The Article stated, for example, "Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles." The original studies, however, did not specifically focus on lesbian maternal roles. The Report also ignores some of M. Kirkpatrick's original data (1987) which records a Lesbian mother calling her partner's son a "macho creep"."

And then they talk about cherry picking?

It hasn't ever occurred to, has it, that you got your information on this study from, in the end, one solitary person. What do we know about Sharon Quick, other than she is a doctor, and that she lives in the Bible Belt? And that she spent, quoting article, five years poring over the research, looking for (paraphrase) things that she could cast doubt upon.

I too suggest some reserve. You are the one who doesn't suggest reserve. You suggest falsity, which is behavior that shows no reserve, only conviction. I don't think your conviction is in any way warranted, and I don't think that a notion of falsity is warranted, but further study is always a good and welcome thing. At any rate, even looking through what Dr. Quick testified about, it's difficult to see without wanting too an evil pro-gay bias. Although I agree with the idea that it was later gone on to be shown, wrongly, as undisputed proof. But then again, I'm not the one who's been obsessing over the use of "facts," either. (Your facts have still been, in the end, pretty minimal, by the way) I think the lack of research done denies much usage of "fact," if by fact you mean things that can't be in some way cast into question. (And I must admit I'm wondering what you would truly consider a fact under this guideline, as everything you've brought up has been just as easily cast into question as the information that you yourself have (cough) debunked).

Anything else? I'll be back later.

Linda Endicott 9 years, 12 months ago

And conservative Christian groups (and others against gay marriage), in their attempt to paint heterosexual marriage in the best possible light, have never, ever, "cherry-picked" the information they use, kansas 778, in order to make things look better for their viewpoint?

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Jonas (cough), was that the (cough) study or (cough) not?

pediatrics Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 341-344 (cough, cough)

I quoted (cough) directly from the (cough) aap (cough) website (cough, cough, cough).

But (cough, cough, cough)......there's (cough, cough, cough).....and (cough, cough, cough) Sorry, I seem to have caught some snobbishness.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

Errrr. .. . no, you pretty much had that from the moment you came on.

The quote from the website neither cast into any more doubt my assertions, which were admitted on several occasions to be less than perfect truth, nor did it do anything to support your own in any meaningful way.

/yes, by the way, it appeared to be the same study. Still, the data was not falsified by the information you brought forth, merely acknowledged to be less than absolute truth. But then, only fools generally claim that they have absolute truth or knowledge about most anything. Save maybe mathematics.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

Hey ho!

All I could think of to say. But you asked.

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Jonas, you know, you're right. Just because a sample is small and nonrepresentative, that doesn't mean it's not true. For example, let's find out the average wealth of african americans using a small nonrepresentative example. We'll take the average wealth of Oprah, Lebron James, and Barack Obama. Yes the sample is small and nonrepresentative, but there are other studies I can incorrectly cite to make it sound like they agree with me. The only question now is, what kind of public policy should be made on my study?

deec 9 years, 12 months ago

Maybe if the anti-gay folks would worry about adultery in their own relationships, they wouldn't be so obsessed with what gay folks are doing. Unless, of course, they are cheating on their wives with other guys....

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Oh no Jonas, you see, if you add all the other studies which I would incorrectly cite, then you get 70,000, just like how the aap study's sample was no where near 70,000. Anyways, correct methodology means nothing right?

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

That was just a joke by the way. In case you didn't click on the Laughing Vash link. I certainly don't want to talk about abortion.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

You still get four? Hmmm. . . . .

Anyway, I'm going to let this die. You made your point, that liberals frequently use histrionics in place of facts or thought-out positions (which, amusingly, I agreed with as soon as you made it), and I think I've let you drag on long enough at this point to make mine, that conservatives are no different.

So we're both winners!

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Jonas: "70,000=4?"

Wow, my mistake. I thought you would understand the analogy that a small and nonrepresentative sample can provide drastically incorrect results. I was wrong. I can see why the SAT no longer has analogies on it, apparantly people are too stupid to do them anymore.

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

Kitten is to cat as puppy is to dog.

Jonas: "Cat=Dog? What kind of crazy stuff is that?"

shockchalk 9 years, 12 months ago

Left, Right, or Center

Republican, Democrat, or Independant

Liberal, Conservative, or moderate

When the citizens of this country have been given the opportunity to vote, they OVERWHELMINGLY vote against gay marriage. Most of these votes have been at 70% or greater. Now, that's an awful lot of Democrats, liberals, etc. voting AGAINST gay marriage unless you believe 70% of all voters are Republican. Watch where you sling that mud, it's sticking to your shoes.

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

No offense, but your analogy is pretty much saying that a mountain equals a molehill. I followed it perfectly, it's just a silly exaggeration, poorly and clumsily used to make a point that I've already conceded to you, that the data is certainly less than perfect. It reminded me of the time one of my conservative friends compared smoking in a restaurant to firing a gun in a restaurant: it makes sense as long as you have no concept of intensity or scale. At any rate, as I have agreed with you that existing data is flawed and "suggests some reserve" (assuming that reserve is something you are capable of understanding) I'm really not sure what you've been continuously howling about. But, as I said, it does show that you are quite as capable of resorting to histrionics as anyone else. Certainly what you considered an "analogy' was nothing more than an emotional aggravation of the existing context to make it seem much larger and more grotesque than it really warrants.

Damn, you dragged me back in! Oh well, you are certainly fun to argue against. It's too bad, looking through your posting history, that this is the only position that we disagree on. What are your views on abortion?

jonas 9 years, 12 months ago

While I was sleeping. . . .

Whoops four posts! My data is agenda driven and inaccurate!

kansas778 9 years, 12 months ago

My views on abortion? Personally I find it abhorrent. Legally I believe in judicial restraint, and Roe v. Wade is part of the common law.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.