Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Efficacy and Reason

prop 8, heterosexual, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, tradition, traditional, adoption, children, logic, reason
I can't say as I've ever heard "efficacy" used in quite this context before:

The whole argument about “fairness” misses the point on marriage. Marriage isn’t about fairness…it’s about efficacy. It’s not a gay/straight equation, it’s a marriage vs. everything else equation.

No other living arrangement works as well for the stability of children and families as a loving lifelong marriage between a man and a woman.


That is the true case, and that’s why gay “marriage” will never be equal.

Um . . . efficacy? And who will be deciding the efficacy of marriages? Clearly, simply being straight isn't all there could be to efficacy. I mean, the whole basis of her argument is marriage and children. What about my marriage? There's no children involved. There never will be. There can't be.

So, as efficacy is being determined by children, and I can't have children (and don't want to), my marriage will automatically be . . . what? Denied? Just like she's denying marriage to same sex couples?

I rather think so.

Methinks someone might enjoy wearing a brown shirt a little too much.

For the reason portion of this post, we revisit our old friend emissary, who seems to think he can reason his way out of a wet paper bag. (Hint: that part you see light coming through- it's the opening.)

The Best Place for Raising Children

Traditional marriage is being attacked from all angles. you're a bunch of bigoted morons is not "all angles". But one of the most damaging cause it's true! is the idea that "there is no best place to raise a child." i'm voting for sweden, but i'm a big fan of their tiny deer. Studies have supposedly been done showing that children raised by same-sex couples are not harmed in any way because of it. yes, they have been done. it's science! But if we try to counter with other studies debunked flawed studies comparing two parent households to one parent households. (as if two gay guys is only equal to one woman or something). or stories of the opposite stories are not science, it's claimed that statistics are misleading or studies can be biased. yeah. that's not a claim, that's fact. stop using debunked studies.

If we can't use statistics, studies, or personal stories, you can use statistics, just not debunked ones. what does that leave us with? bigotry. We can reason through it. who is this "we" you refer to? To do so, I used a tool called a "best-best comparison". wait, you're tool-using now? who knew? It basically acknowledges that any individual may be an incredible parent. maybe, ya know, unless their gay. So we compare the BEST married father and mother to the BEST same-sex couple to the BEST single parent. how do we do that? do we hold tryouts? what exact criteria are we using for "BEST"? did you interview everyone on the damn planet to determine this? probably not. This removes the "it depends on who the parents are" argument. why keep the good arguments when you can use bad ones instead? And what does it leave us with? a lot of bunk? Is there anything that makes the best married parents superior to any other form of parenting? did he just ask if best is better than better?

The answer is a resounding YES. Yes-es-es-es-es

While I encourage everyone to do this experiment, other than yourself? i see no evidence of an experiment here. this word, i do not think it means what you think it means. here are three main advantages that my "best-best comparison" shows. I have mentioned some of these in other contexts, but want to include them here.

First, it provides a parent to emulate. Girls learn how to be women from their mothers. Boys learn how to be men from their fathers. nothing like turning conformity to gender stereotypes into the highest form of parenting. asshat. This is especially important in the context of big changes, like puberty. One of the most valid comments I read was, "When a girl is starting her menstrual cycle, which of her dads will really understand?"

no, that's not a valid question, it's a stupid question. clearly, emissary has never menstruated. i'm menstruating right now, and i can tell you, there's not a lot to understand.

Second, it provides a parent to represent the other sex. In the vast majority of society, girls grow up to marry men, and men grow up to marry women. They see from their parents how to find someone they want to be with, and how to make the marriage work well. Many girls know how to find a marriage partner by looking for someone like their fathers. Boys look for someone like their mothers. There are so many problems caused in today's society by girls who never had fathers. They don't know how to find a good man, so many of them try to find just any man.

by this logic, hetero couples should not be allowed to raise gay children, because their gay children will have no representation of a loving gay marriage. i don't think he means that.

Third, it provides security and belonging. which a same sex couple couldn't provide . . . why? There is nothing quite like security to a child. To know that your parents are the same people who wanted you, conceived you, bore you, legally own you legally OWN you?, and will raise you to the best of their abilities . . . . It is almost impossible to describe the belonging that gives to a child. Adopted children have similar feelings because they have a father and mother who stand in the stead of their biological parents. so children adopted by hetero couples have this security, but children adopted by same sex couples do not? why? in fact, according to asshat here, the biological child of one half of a same sex couple should feel more security than the unrelated adopted child of a hetero couple. it's your logic, asshat, own it. But any other arrangement eventually produces a loss of that security. When children realize that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, children in same-sex homes or with single parents realize that something is missing. lulz! They are missing their other half -- the other parent they should have. you mean like the adopted child of a hetero couple who is missing BOTH halves? be very careful with the logic that is pointy on both ends, my dear.

So what does this mean? not what he thinks it does.

Does this mean that other kinds of parents cannot raise healthy, successful children? No; but it requires concerted effort to give them good role models they can interact with on a consistent basis. not their parents, because we can't trust gays to parent properly. The intact, married family, on the other hand, is self-sufficient (so to speak). that's why hetero couples never need daycare or baby sitters. As such, I believe it's important that society and government support the married family to give children the best chance. I do not believe that the government should support, promote, or pay for any procedure that will purposefully not give a child a mother and a father. is this a screed against IVF or something? i can't even follow the illogic at this point. hell, he proved half my points for me, which is no fun at all.

15 comments:

  1. "There are so many problems caused in today's society by girls who never had fathers. They don't know how to find a good man, so many of them try to find just any man."

    Woah there emissary! I had a father, and a step father. I don't know how to find a good man. Both of my father figures were very very broken, so you're mother/father marriage did me no good. I'm probably worse off than my daughter will be, because I keep looking at broken men as the way to go.
    Christ, this person doesn't take any actual real-world data into account, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why use reality when baseless assertions prove your point so much better?

    Frankly, looking back on my parents' marriage I realize two things: (1) my father never wanted any of his girls and that FUCKED ME UP and (2) my mother might very well be gay.

    oh, and (3) i would have been a lot happier being raised by mom and her (theoretical) lesbian partner than i ever was being "raised" by my father.

    and, good for you not sharing your fuckedupedness with your daughter. that's strength.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "But any other arrangement eventually produces a loss of that security. When children realize that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, children in same-sex homes or with single parents realize that something is missing. They are missing their other half -- the other parent they should have."

    By this logic, widow(er)s should be forcibly married to a new partner because having a single parent is depriving them of their other half. This asshole is pro-forced marriage.

    Also, if this "emissary" person is really concerned about the end of marriage, they're fighting the wrong enemy. The real problem is, of course, the Bible's War on Marriage :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really wish you were more knowledgeable about the state of this debate. Honest & Goodwill arguments have ceded many points relevant to both sides in this argument. Perhaps if you use some of the link I referenced before you can go beyond the blanket assertions of professional organizations regarding the state of the science & approach the level of sophistication exercised by leading (goodwill) opponents on either side.



    *Leading, qualified proponents of genderless marriage have acknowledged the validity of the good-science requirements, and also the validity of conclusion’s regarding the failure of the “no differences” studies.

    See….

    William Meezan & Jonathan Rauch, Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America’s Children, 15 FUTURE OF CHILD. 97, 104 (2005) (“We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. . . . Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite- sex parenting (or better, or worse) are . . . right.”)

    Judith Stacey & Timothy J. Biblarz, (How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?, 66 AM. SOC. REV. 159, 166 (2001).

    Declaration of Alan J. Hawkins as Expert Witness for Defendant at 8–9, Varnum v. Brien, No. CV 5965 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Mar. 15, 2007),


    In that regard I offer some findings from the recent Iowa District Court courts decision on same-sex “marriage”. Certainly you will concede that the very experienced advocates for same-sex “marriage” who argued before the State Court would be loathe to cede foundational arguments to the opposition if they were truly contested within social science.

    The Iowa State Court had noted that those advocating for same-sex “marriage” did not dispute, and frankly offered no evidence to contradict, two salient findings:

    1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like (note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made)” *

    2. "Children reared in a stable natural married family are likely to do better on various measures of educational attainment; exhibit fewer behavioral problems, including conduct disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and juvenile delinquency; will not be as likely to engage in criminal behavior as adults; engage in sexual relations as teenagers, and to experience an unwed pregnancy; have a decreased risk for mental/emotional illness; have a decreased risk of physical illness and infant mortality; experience decreased risk of suicide; have a greater life expectancy; likely to benefit from high levels of parental investment, commitment, and closeness (particularly with their fathers); be victims of physical and sexual abuse; experience higher levels of family stability as adults, including a decreased divorce risk."

    Your opinion on this matter will be quite telling. It will tell me whether I am arguing with someone persuadable by evidence, or someone who (as you assert) is more like those “bigots” you seem so readily to impute on any opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, Fitz, it would be helpful if you were more honest.

    The studies you cite don't say what you say they say.

    Jackass.

    2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. 1 They :
    Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."
    Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."
    Suggested a "less defensive, more sociologically informed analytic framework" for future studies in this area.

    You can slam my comments with lots of words, it doesn't make you any less intellectually bankrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rob: they absolutely are pro forced marriage and pro forced pregnancy. I am as useless as a gay guy to them because I'm not popping out bebbies every year. And don't get them started on the essential sinfulness of enjoying my vagina and not paying for it with babies. (or AIDS. I'm sure they'd be okay with that as payment for orgasms.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Personal Failure - You either miss or elide the point.

    In my above referenced reports Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz do not assert that there are no studies showing adequate same-sex parenting.

    Rather they State that the studies to date are insufficient to meet the good science requirements in both quality and quantity so as to earnestly establish a consensus at this date. (i.e.) The research is in its infancy & even proponents of gay parenting won’t assert a solid conclusion in good faith at this point.

    I draw that in contrast to the consensus that social science has generated about optimal parenting in the myriad of other family forms that have been adequately studied.

    Does that make the point any clearer?

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, you're point is that the evidence shows nothing in particular about the effects of gays raising children, therefore we shouldn't allow gays to marry?

    A =/= B, therefore B = Q?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, and that case Fitzy referenced? THAT CASE IS STILL BEING DECIDED BY THE IOWA SUPREME COURT. Jerk. The "findings" of the district court aren't part of any precedent yet, and even if they were, it would only be binding in Iowa.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, and check out pages 14-15, which Fitzy seems to have "missed":

    However, Dr. Hawkins makes it clear in his deposition that he has not read the
    vast majority ofthe studies concerning gay and lesbian parenting, that he has performed
    no related research himselfand that he is unaware of the existence ofmany recentlypublished
    studies cited by Plaintiffs' expert, Michael Lamb. Hawkins Deposition
    Transcript, page 33, lines 3-13; page 98, line 16; page llO,line 25. Because he
    admittedly is unable to evaluate current social science regarding gay and lesbian
    parenting generally or critique the methodology upon which that science is based, Dr.
    Hawkins apparently is not commenting upon the relative frequency ofpositive outcomes in child-rearing by heterosexual couples as opposed to same-sex couples nor apparently is
    he commenting upon how children do by various measures when reared by stably
    married heterosexual couples as opposed to same-sex couples.

    ReplyDelete
  11. #1. "Oh, and that case Fitzy referenced? THAT CASE IS STILL BEING DECIDED BY THE IOWA SUPREME COURT. Jerk. The "findings" of the district court aren't part of any precedent yet, and even if they were, it would only be binding in Iowa."

    Yes: duh, - They are however the findings being presented as part of the trial record to the Supreme Court of Iowa. And they were in fact undisputed by the plaintiffs lawyers.

    #2. And why the constant invective????




    #3. "Oh, and check out pages 14-15, which Fitzy seems to have "missed":"

    No - I did not miss that, That’s my WHOLE POINT of my post to you on the Iowa court findings.

    The social science evidence is clear as to optimal family formation

    1. "Social science literature demonstrates the children who are reared by a married natural mother and father have more positive outcomes in a wide variety of important factors compared to children in other adequately studied family structures- including single parent families, adopted families, step families, divorced families and the like

    (note – Courts, social scientists & advocates of same-sex “marriage” themselves concede that same-sex families have not been adequately studied so that solid conclusions can be made)


    Once again: your opinion on this matter will be quite telling. It will tell me whether I am arguing with someone persuadable by evidence, or someone who (as you assert) is more like those “bigots” you seem so readily to impute on any opposition.

    (*except – as I note same-sex gay households that are still under review) )


    “Do you concede the social scientific consensus on the natural married family being the best predictor of child outcomes as measured against all competing forms????*“

    ReplyDelete
  12. I always got the impression emissary was a woman.?

    Just me then.

    I find the arguments put forward at his/her blog to be quite sound, especially in the comments. They make me sit up and think anyway.
    But I'm just a bear of very small brain! I'm not saying they're right (yet:)) because they go against the grain of my expectations and my experience.
    Logically, I cannot see why 1 man 1 woman marriage should be the absolute standard. I can't see any theological basis for it, nor moral basis.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I thought that, too, until I saw the whole menstruation angle. Usually women don't see anything too special about menstruation. I mean, we do it all the time. It's like guys and morning wood. I might find that amusing as all get out, but that's old hat to a guy.

    I really do wonder what it feels like to have dangly genitalia.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whenever anyone starts throwing the term "traditional marriage" around (especially when they really mean "the nuclear family structure frequently found, but not universally, in modern Western societies"), I feel like beating them over the head with a textbook on family structure, with particular emphasis on variability of family structures within and among societies over time. Somehow, human beings manage to do just fine (and societies manage to stay stable) with all sorts of wacky and creative family arrangements.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Exactly my point. "Traditional" marriage has existed for maybe 100 years, probably less than that.

    In some cultures, if you said that you were a monogamist, you would be the freak who needs to be removed from polite society. It's all perspective.

    Thank you for that link. I am SO buying that.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are for you guys, not for me. Say what you will. Don't feel compelled to stay on topic, I enjoy it when comments enter Tangentville or veer off into Non Sequitur Town. Just keep it polite, okay?

I am attempting to use blogger's new comment spam feature. If you don't immediately see your comment, it is being held in spam, I will get it out next time I check the filter. Unless you are Dennis Markuze, in which case you're never seeing your comment.

Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.