Let's Define a Few Terms

Day after day after day I read blog posts and articles written by people who define their religion by their bigotries. "I'm not a homophobe, I'm a Christian." "I'm not a misogynist, I'm a Christian." "I'm not hateful, I'm godly."

For one thing, thank you. Thank you for making your entire religion so revolting I don't have any doubts. It's easier on me that way. The Slacktivist gives me doubts occasionally, so filled is he with generosity and love for his fellow man. He makes me think*. You do not.

You make me grateful for my atheism. Good job.

Good job to Chuck Colson, who can be counted on to make me feel good about my lack of ability to believe.

For the past year, we’ve talked a lot about the threat to religious freedom in America.

You've talked. I've been over here nattering on about equal rights for all the women and gays and atheists.

We’ve talked about Christian adoption agencies closing rather than being forced to place children with same-sex couples.

No, those are adoption agencies who decided it would be better to leave children in group homes and foster care than give them to couples who would love and raise them simply because of a burning hatred for those couples. Get it right. Gays didn't make anyone shut down adoption agencies, adoption agencies chose to hurt, or at least stop helping, children instead of giving up their hatreds. Don't mistake hatred for nobility.

We’ve talked about health care professionals having to choose between their consciences and participating in immoral medical practices.

No, those are doctors and nurses and pharmacists who have decided they know better than women- always women, never men- what those women should do with their own bodies. They know whether or not a woman can afford or wants to be pregnant, they know exactly what every woman should do with her body far better than she does. Don't mistake arrogance for professionalism.

We’ve talked about the Administration playing fast and loose with the notion of religious freedom-choosing instead to talk about freedom of “worship.”

It took me a second, but he's referring to Obama using the phrase "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion", ignoring the fact that Reagan, Bush the Elder, Eisenhower and Lincoln all used the phrase "freedom of worship" and nobody clutched any pearls. Don't mistake sophistry for meaning.

But these threats to our first freedom pale in comparison to the threat posed by a single court case now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It's the gays again, isn't it?

The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Judge Walker not only overturned the will of the people of California, he put all religious believers on notice: Their faith means nothing in the eyes of the law.

Actually, it’s even worse than that. The judge found as fact that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

If this judge’s decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court, the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of Americans will be seen as harmful in the eyes of the law.

Yes, because the most important thing about Christianity is it's homophobia, just as Jesus said . . . wait, he didn't say that? He said the most important thing is loving your neighbor as yourself? Huh.

Why is it that I know that and Mr. Colson doesn't?

Judge Walker also concluded that, quote, “Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.” End quote. So, according to Judge Walker, if you believe marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, you are a homophobe and a bigot.

Well, yes, actually. I guess this is hurtful to you, but yes, that's exactly what it is. There's really nothing else I can say about that. The sky is blue, water is wet, you are a bigot.

Such legal reasoning not only charts the course for destroying religious liberty, it paves the way for societal chaos. Arguing against so-called same-sex "marriage" is not "gay bashing." It is an argument for preserving traditional marriage. I've spent 35 years ministering in prisons and have seen the tragic results of broken homes. I know the disaster that awaits if so-called same-sex "marriage" is allowed to further devalue marriage and weaken the traditional American family.

What do broken homes have to do with same sex marriage? Nothing, really, but Chuck has seen people in prison- prison!- and you should be afraid!

Fortunately, Chuck doesn't really have any answers, just a video and the Manhattan Declaration. I think we'll be okay on the Chuck front.

*I think Fred would be as good a person had he never heard of Jesus, but he does make belief attractive.

Children: The Harbingers of Immorality

gay, marriage, prop 8, same sex, children, divorce, premarital, adultery, ivf, immoral, immorality
or "Asking the Obvious Question"

The Playful Walrus is determined to ask the obvious question when it comes to other people's private lives:

WHERE IS THE MOTHER? We know these two guys did not conceive and carry these children. If they rescued these kids from a group home, that's a different matter than breaking up a marriage, making babies out of wedlock, or intentionally depriving these children of a mother. Since the media loves focusing on couples with kids in these stories, I will keep asking the obvious question every time they fail to answer it.

Now, you might say Walrus is combining bigotry with an unseemly interest in other people's private lives, but I say why stop at gay couples' children? Children potentially represent all kinds of immorality: divorce, premarital sex, adultery, IVF (but what about the zygotes!), the list goes on.

So I say don't just ask gay couples where the mother/father is, ask that question of any child you see on the street with only one adult accompanying them. Sure, daddy or mommy might be at work, or simply might have stayed at home, but surely we all have the right to make sure we're not witnessing the results of a divorce, or even worse, a couple who never did get married. Of course, it's entirely possible you may confront a recent widow/widower, but don't let that stop you.

But why stop there?

What about divorce, or what about all those women who just can't help but spreading their legs for every guy who comes along, and then pass off their children as their spouse's, another favorite topic of the Walrus? Those children represent immorality so any time you see a child that does not resemble the man (s)he is with, you should inquire as to the paternity. In fact, you may just want to go ahead and take a DNA sample, just to be sure. Don't let a little thing like an assault charge stop you.

What about the use of IVF? They don't just fertilize one egg, you know. And they don't store the rest of the frozen darlings forever, either. So, if you see a family composed of what looks suspiciously like multiples, you should ask how they were conceived. Don't let anyone tell you it's not your business, it totally is.

What about those childless couples you see? Well, they're just selfish and paving the way for the muslim takeover of the world. So the next time you see a man and a woman out in public without children, you should make sure they're taking their reproductive responsibilities seriously. Sure, their children could be at home, and you run the risk of asking that question of someone whose child just died, but don't let that stop you in your quest to save the world's children.

What about older couples with young children? You know that's some kind of immorality. Sure, it could just be grandma and grandpa taking their grandchildren out for some fun, but it could be the horror of older people having babies, or grandparents forced to raise their grandchildren due to their children's uncontrollable immorality, which is always the parents' fault, anyway.

Frankly, I think Playful Walrus hasn't gone far enough. Though, if you're going to root out all the immorality those little things some people call the future represent, Walrus is spot on: you shouldn't let a little thing like common decency get in your way.

Majority Rules

traditional, marriage, prop 8, gay, same sex,
Like the idea of the majority rule? Well, the Gundersons did, too. (Hat tip to the Super Jesus.)

Legal Precedents You Probably Don't Really Want

prop 8, gay, same sex, marriage, opine, editorials, stupid,
no matter what you say, Jose.

Jose Solano, of the Opine Editorials, makes either the stupidest or the most disingenuous argument about the Prop 8 decision I have seen yet.

While the California Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of Proposition 8 it simultaneous violates the Constitution by stating that 18,000 same-sex "marriages" will be recognized in California. This is a bizarre maneuver that demonstrates that the court has no interest in altering its judicial activism posture. It saw clearly that it could not overturn Proposition 8 but refused to accept what the amendment actually says.

Proposition 8 clearly and unequivocally states:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So how on earth can the Supreme Court rule that 18,000 same-sex couples have marriages that are valid and recognized in California? This is an interpretation direct from the twilight zone of Orwellian reasoning.

First of all, I'm not sure you know what Orwellian reasoning is, but this isn't it. For one thing, as the Court clearly stated in its decision:

it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

So, according to Jose, the Court following well established legal principles is Orwellian. Seriously?

Jose makes his argument even worse with the following example:

Let's put this in perspective by a couple of examples. If the law states that you must be 18 years old to drink alcohol but then a law is passed that says everyone must be 21 years old to drink, can that possibly be interpreted to mean that an exception will be made for everyone not yet 21 without that being stipulated in the new law?

Except that what you want to do is go back and find everyone between the ages of 18 and 21 who was drinking, while it was perfectly legal for them to drink, and arrest them under the new law.

Allow me to give you an example of where the legal precedent you want set would lead. Suppose a law is passed that requires cars to get at least 50 miles to the gallon. Under our current system, you, and everyone else, would be able to keep their lower gas mileage cars, but you couldn't buy a new car that gets less than 50 mpg. Under your desired precedent, the government would be justified in seizing all the cars with lower gas mileage and forcing you to either buy a new car, or walk.

Do you really want that?

You'd Think a Prophet Would Have Seen This Coming

mormon, lds, homophobia, homosexual, evangelical, catholic, prop 8, marriage, tradition, gay
Mormons have been whining that everybody associates prop 8 with them, when in fact evangelicals and Catholics were instrumental in its passing, too.

I just had to post this because it’s too interesting to pass up. So Miss California makes a statement about believing marriage is between a man and a woman, I blog about it, and suddenly traffic to my blog jumps by the hundreds. And guess what people are searching for? You got it, variations of “Miss California + Mormon” and “Is Carrie Prejean Mormon?”

Why is it that we’re still stuck here, folks? Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not the only ones who donated to Proposition 8. And Mormons are not the only ones who worked to ensure the passage of Proposition 8. In fact, Mormons were the last faith-based group invited to join the Protect Marriage coalition! Granted, I take pride in defending marriage, but that doesn’t mean I was the only one doing it and maybe, just maybe, there are some other folks out there who would like their fair share of intimidation, intolerance, vandalism, and vulgarity. Just a thought . . . .

So I'll do the Mormons a favor and explain something obvious to them.

Everyone in the US already knew what Catholics and evangelicals are like. They've been in the public eye, being all intolerant and ridiculous for quite some time. Mormons, on the other hand, were an unknown quantity to most of the US until very recently, when Mitt Romney ran in the Republican primary and the Prop 8 debate reared its ugly head.

This may seem a little odd to Mormons, but if you had asked the average USian about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, you would have had to rephrase that to "Mormons" to even get a response. Then, their response would have been something vague about "those guys in the white shirts and black ties" and "Utah". Very few people who weren't Mormon, or didn't live in a predominantly Mormon community, would have been able to tell you about the prophets currently leading LDS, or that the Book of Mormon is, to Mormons, as important, if not more important, than the Bible.

That's the unfortunate part about the leaders of LDS deciding to flex their newly discovered muscles in the Prop 8 debate: it cemented in many people's minds a connection between Mormons and anti gay propaganda. Now, if LDS' leaders had decided to jump into the public scene by, I dunno, helping Katrina victims or something, the general public perception of Mormons would be entirely different. "Oh, yeah, Mormons- didn't they build a bunch of houses for people in New Orleans? Yeah, they seem nice."

Really, you did it to yourselves, and it would not take a prophet to see the backlash before it even started.

So, there you have it, an object lesson to any up and coming religions looking to burst onto the scene: start with something nice.

Most Ridiculous Analogy of the Week

beetlebabee, analogy, gay, marriage, prop 8, same sex, tradition, war,
I'll probably regret giving this out so soon, but I have to award the Most Ridiculous Analogy of the Week to Beetlebabee for this:

[The fight against same sex marriage is] like washing the dishes or making the dinner. Put on the helmet, tighten your belt, change your expectations and incorporate this war into your lifestyle. It’s not going away anytime soon.

Does anyone here put on a helmet and tighten their belt before washing dishes or making dinner? Why would I need a helmet or a tighter belt? What on earth is going on in Beetle's kitchen that she needs a helmet to make dinner or wash dishes?

Oh, and I like the idea of "incorporating" war into one's lifestyle. Here's the thing: if you actually are involved in a war, you know, like our brave soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, war is your lifestyle. There's no "incorporating" to be done, war is all you're doing.

Yeesh. Comparisons that make no sense and inappropriate war references.

Yeeeaaahhh Sweden! Woo Hoo!

gay, marriage, tradition, homosexual, prop 8, doma
Yet another reason to love Sweden:

Parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to recognise same-sex marriage, becoming the fifth country in Europe to do so.

. . .

The new law lets homosexuals wed in either a civil or religious ceremony, though individual churches can opt out.

The law was passed by 226 votes to 22 and will come into force on 1 May.

Guest Posting: Debunking UFI's Sexual Orientation Guide

suicide, homophobia, homosexual, ufi, tradition, traditional, gay, marriage, prop 8, asshat, apa style, sandfort
Today we have a post from [redacted], who has kindly offered to debunk UFI's Sexual Orientation Guide for us. Trust me, this is fun.

[redacted]:

Okay, I'm only on the very first "point" in the UFI document, and I'm having major issues (gasp. shock.)

First of all, if you can't be bothered to properly spell the researcher's last name, I'm going to question the integrity of your research from GO. It's called "attention to detail" and IT FUCKING MATTERS. If you can't pay attention to small details, I'm going to deduce that you may not grasp more complex ones, asshat.

Okay, starting with number 1, which UFI cites as:

(Studyof 5,998 Dutch adults) Theo G.M. Sandforte et al., "Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the NetherlandsMental Health Survey and Incidence," Archives of General Psychiatry58, 10 (2001): 85-91.

Counterpoint 1 -- Sandfort. No e, asshats.

Counterpoint 2 -- Now, I'll give them the "et al" (even though there are only 3 other names, and it's not been cited previously in the paper [since we're on point one here] and also since there's not a compiled source of references at the end, which means this is NOT a proper APA style citation, but fine, whatever, benefit of doubt and not nitpicking, right?) Okay, so. The et al we're letting slide.

Next up....the volume number. Um, volume 10 of this journal in 2001 does not contain pages 85-91. Volume 1 does. So...typo, but again - attention to detail. I'm starting to wonder if they even want people to be able to find this study... I'm guessing NOT, since...

Counterpoint 3 -- Alvin and Pam at Pam's House Blend already wrote this up better than I could, so here. The gist of it is, this study doesn't say what these people want to say it says (shock. awe. gasp. NOT.) Honestly, people, it's bad enough you distorted the findings, but the researcher himself has said to STOP IT. Please...listen to Dr. Sandfort.

"There is a difference between the U.S. and the Netherlands in terms of acceptance of homosexuality. That does not mean that there is no homophobia (and homophobic damage) in the Netherlands. It is not clear how difference in climate affects the prevalence of mental disorders. We don't know the final answers, but in the U.S. as well as the Netherlands, homophobia is related to mental health problems.

He also said that Griggs and others who use the study to claim that homophobia does not have an effect on negative lgbt behavior are clearly distorting his work:"They use data to promote their moral convictions without truly understanding what the issues are. They are not interested in understanding how people's lives are affected by their social environment."

Okay, their second point. They cite two studies. Their 2A is

R. Herrell et al., "A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56, 10 (1999): 867-874. **NOTE: The proper title of the study (really, do they not want people to be able to find these?) is:
Sexual orientation and suicidality: a co-twin control study in adult men

Also, can we just stop with naming only one author? If this is the only citation you're going to provide, and it's not in the context of a paragraph, you do NOT get to just say "Herrell et al." Proper APA citation requires you to list ALL of the researchers. Fuckwads. Oops, sorry.

Okay, so. They use this citation to support the following statement:

A co-twin study found that men with same-sexpartners were 6.5 times as likely as their cotwinto have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not explained by mental health or substance abuse disorders.

Well that sounds sort of bleak. Of course, it ignores the fact that just because gay marriage is legal in the Netherlands doesn't mean gay people don't face prejudice or discrimination or censure; it just means it's not legally permissible that the discrimination is institutionalized. Additionally, although it's technically correct, they conveniently left off the researchers' own results and conclusion, which according to the PubMed abstract , can be stated as

:RESULTS: Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures. Unadjusted matched-pair odds ratios follow: 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 - 4.6) for thoughts about death; 4.4 (95% CI, 1.7 - 11.6) for wanted to die; 4.1 (95% CI, 2.1 - 8.2) for suicidal ideation; 6.5 (95% CI, 1.5 - 28.8) for attempted suicide; and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.4 - 10.9) for any of the suicidal symptoms. After adjustment for substance abuse and depressive symptoms (other than suicidality), all of the suicidality measures remain significantly associated with same-gender sexual orientation except for wanting to die (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.7 - 8.81). CONCLUSIONS: The substantially increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric comorbidity. While the underlying causes of the suicidal behaviors remain unclear, future research needs to address the inadequacies in the measurement of both sexual orientation and suicidality in population-based samples.

All right, that's a little confusing if you haven't taken stats or research design. Basically, they found strong association with gay men who, outside of those who were substance abusers and/or determined to be depressed, who measured higher than their twins in "suicidality measures." I'm still not sure why UFI thinks that people need to avoid being gay in order to avoid being suicidal. First, it ignores the fact that this study doesn't include any gay women. Second, it confuses correlation with causality. Straight men/boys commit suicide, too, and frankly, any number of suicides is too high (oddly, a not-insignificant number of them do it as murder-suicide and take other people with them. Including their children. Just to keep their ex-wives from thinking they can divorce them without "paying" for it.) (If that didn't make sense to you, please see: this article

So sure, being gay in the Netherlands is associated with higher risks of suicidal tendencies. Probably we want to address this risk. Perhaps we might want to see if anti-gay attitudes contributed to this? (Oh, no, wait, that wouldn't do AT ALL.) Regardless, I think another thing ignored by UFI here is the researchers' own conclusion where it says that "While the underlying causes of the suicidal behaviors remain unclear, future research needs to address the inadequacies in the measurement of both sexual orientation and suicidality in population-based samples." It's pretty clear here that: number one, correlation does not equal causation, and number two, the ways that sexual orientation and suicidality were measured in the study are problematic. I guess if this study saw correlations between happiness and orientation, UFI might ignore it as inconclusive. Le sigh.

All right, on to 2B. Which UFI cites as:

Ping Qin, Esben Agerbo, and Preben Bo Mortensen, "Suicide Risk inRelation to Socioeconomic, Demographic, Psychiatric, and FamilialFactors: A National Register-Based Study of All Suicides in Denmark,1981-1997." American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 765-772.

Well yeaaaa, we seem to have learned to include all of the researchers names! However, since all of the issues in 2003 are volume 160, an issue number of month would be really helpful here. Oh, look, I found it. APRIL 2003. Now, what point are they making here? Oh, yes: Researchers found "an elevated suicide risk for homosexuals" even in tolerant Denmark.

Okay, once again, I think we're confusing "tolerant Denmark" with "no one ever picks on gay people." But fine, whatever, let's see what the FULL STUDY has to say about sexual orientation, and if the researchers mention anything else about this that might have been left out (please. At this point, even though we're only on point 2B, I'd be stupid not to be skeptical of omissions on the part of UFI.)

Why, look. I seem to have found something interesting in the full text of just the ABSTRACT (I'll italicize it to make it stand out)

:RESULTS: Of the risk factors examined in the study, a history of hospitalization for psychiatric disorder was associated with the highest odds ratio and the highest attributable risk for suicide. Cohabiting or single marital status, unemployment, low income, retirement, disability, sickness-related absence from work, and a family history of suicide and/or psychiatric disorders were also significant risk factors for suicide. Moreover, these factors had different effects in male and female subjects. A psychiatric disorder was more likely to increase suicide risk in female than in male subjects. Being single was associated with higher suicide risk in male subjects, and having a young child with lower suicide risk in female subjects. Unemployment and low income had stronger effects on suicide in male subjects. Living in an urban area was associated with higher suicide risk in female subjects and a lower risk in male subjects. A family history of suicide raised suicide risk slightly more in female than in male subjects.

Hmmm. So it appears that in this review of all Danish suicides from 1981 - 1997, the biggest risk factor was history of hospitalization, not sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, since it was only in 1994 that Danish gay couples could cohabit as registered "couples" with marital benefits, any gay suicides before 1994 would have been counted as "single." After 1994, they count as "cohabiting." Let's see what the researchers have to say about this. Oh, look, I found the quote UFI mined for their point in 2B: Registered partners (i.e., homosexual couples living under the same legal status as a married couple) could be distinguished from single persons only from 1994 onward. Okay, so they might have skewed the "single" stats if they committed suicide before 1994, and would be under-represented in the "married" stats, since the researchers didn't cut off the findings at pre-and post-1994. I'm sure they address this. Let's see.

Oh, look, I found the quote that UFI mined for their point in 2B:

As for family structure, previous studies have reported that single people are more likely to commit suicide (2, 3), but our study further shows a significantly higher risk of suicide for cohabiting people even though cohabitation is almost equivalent to an officially certified marriage relationship in the eyes of most people in Denmark. Moreover, consistent with a few studies reporting that same-gender sexual orientation is associated with suicidality (30, 31), our results clearly show an elevated suicide risk for homosexuals, although this effect was likely to be underestimated because data were available only for those choosing to officially register as partners and only for the period after 1994. Taken together, our results suggest that a traditional family structure may be associated with lower suicide risk, although we cannot determine if the lower risk results from a protective effect of marriage, e.g., in the face of setbacks or difficulties, or from a marriage selection effect (32).

PF: Doesn’t that say that allowing gays to marry (not civil union, but real marriage) would lower their risk of suicide? And if we’re so concerned about suicide risks among gays, wouldn’t that be the only humane thing to do?

[redacted]: But we're not concerned about suicide rates of gays. We're concerned that our children might be gay and therefore at risk of suicide.

PF: But if you thought that your children might be gay, and at risk for suicide, wouldn't you want to protect them . . . oh, never mind.

[redacted]:

And I'm right, it does seem that the risk is likely to be underestimated because it only includes gay couples who officially registered with the state. So wow, it might be even worse, yet UFI failed to point that out (and it would have strengthened their point!) They also failed to quote-mine the better quote here, which is that "a traditional family structure may be associated with lower suicide risk." Why wouldn't they want to point this out? Well, the researchers themselves say that it is indeterminable whether this is because of "a protective effect of marriage...or from a marriage selection effect."

Okay, let's check out this marriage selection effect in a second, but first I want to point out a couple of things:

1) Oddly, the APA's rejection of homosexuality as a disorder makes the APA "suspect" in most UFI/"traditional marriage" arguments. Yet they're quite happy to use THIS research OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE APA to make their point. Look, people - either they're a credible resource...or they're NOT. And you've stated many many times that, in your opinion, the APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder because they are "political" and not "scientific." Well, then, I say you can't use this study. Wait, let's be more generous than that. Let's go ahead, since our stance relies heavily on the APA, and accept this resource, and see, really, what can be said about it. Shall we?

2) Before we get to that, I want to point out again that just because Denmark is more "tolerant" of gays doesn't mean they don't experience any anti-gay bias that could contribute to suicidality. This "tolerance" is fairly recent, and it would be hard to say that the salutary effects of the legalization of gay marriage could have occurred significantly in the 3 years before the study ended. Okay, on to conclusions by the researchers. (Oddly, the UFI is quick to point out that "we just don't know yet what can happen when you legalize gay marriage" when the results show something GOOD happening; then they claim that "more studies, more long-term studies, larger samples" need to be occur before they will accept the research. [Yes, shock, awe, blah blah.])

Oh, look. That's it for "homosexuality" in the study. But there's THIS interesting tidbit at the end of the study that I find telling, seeing how the US is not Western European:

Research and Clinical Implications

The socioeconomic environment in Denmark is similar to that in other Scandinavian countries and would probably also be comparable to that in most Western European countries. However, it may be difficult to generalize the findings of this study to other countries with different social, economic, or cultural conditions.

So...the researchers basically say not to generalize this study to other countries with "different social, economic, or cultural conditions." I'm guessing that prohibition of gay marriage might count as a "different....cultural condition." Strange, this doesn't seem like a good study to support anti-gay attitudes in the U.S.

PF: so, we got through 2 points out of 20. This could take a while.

How Gay Marriage Skews Statistics

gay, marriage, homophobia, homosexual, tradition, dna, duncan, voice, prop 8
During today's Voice of a Nation, the guest, William C. Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation (was it really necessary for me to listen to the program to know what he said?) said that the reason the "traditional marriage" crowd is "losing" in New England is because "marriage is weakest there."

Oh, really?

Perhaps Mr. Duncan simply equates "allowing gays to marry" with "weak marriage", but let's take a look at some dumdumdum statistics. (Ya know, science!)

According to the CDC's website, the rate of divorce (obviously the weakest point of a marriage) in New England is (as of 2004):

Connecticut* 2.4 (per thousand)
Maine 4.3
Massachusetts * 2.2
New Hampshire 3.9
Vermont 3.9

Now let's compare those rates to some other places in the United States.

Arizona** 4.2
Tennessee** 4.9
Arkansas** 6.1
Idaho** 5.0
Kentucky** 4.9
Utah** 4.1
Wyoming 5.2
Alabama 4.9

Clearly, gay marriage does skew marriage statistics***- toward stronger marriage and less divorce.

*allows gay marriage
**bans gay marriage
***yeahyeahyeah correlation does not equal causation, but there is definitely something going on there.

Functioning Genitalia Do Not Make You a Good Parent

abuse, child, children, homophobia, homosexual, SAHM, swope, jennifer, prop 8, marriage, tradition, gay
Jennifer Swope, a stay-at-home mother in Derry, gives us this little gem from Redefining marriage will come with costs:


What makes marriage unique among all human relationships and raises it to the level of a sacred bond is this: The union of one man and one woman is the only natural way that children are conceived. Moreover, the people best suited and motivated to take on the great task of raising a child from helpless newborn to independent adult are the mother and father whose love first brought that child into the world.

Catch that? In Jenny's world, all children are planned and conceived in love. If you can create a child, you are the best qualified person in the world to raise it. Conversely, if you can't create children, you must be a terrible person.

I don't know where Jenny's been living, but over here in the real world, none of that is true. Specifically, creating a child does not make one best qualified to raise a child. (Anyone who has experienced this first hand, raise your hand with me.)

In fact, according to the US Administration for Children & Families, in 2006, nearly 80 percent (79.4%) of perpetrators of child maltreatment were parents, and another 6.7 percent were other relatives of the victim . . . Of the perpetrators who were parents, more than 90 percent (91.5%) were the biological parent of the victim.

Clearly, in 2006, 657,492 children would have been better off with complete strangers than with their biological parents*. (If that number doesn't make you cry, it should.) Also quite clearly, simply sharing DNA with a child does not a parent make.

Really, people, do a little research before you make assertions, m'kay?

*total number of abused children in 2006 estimated to be 905,000. So, (0.794 x 0.915) x 905,000. If I did that wrong, please let me know.

It's Ben&Jerrys

prop 8, vermont, same sex, marriage, gay, homosexual, lgbt
Not Ben&Marys!*

Vermont same sex marriage bill advances!

From The New York Times:

The State Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill to allow same sex marriage, setting the stage for the House to take up the matter this week. The Senate, which is dominated by Democrats, voted 26 to 4 in favor of the measure, which would allow gay couples to marry starting in September. Vermont was the first state to permit civil unions for gay couples, in 2000, and it would be the third, after Massachusetts and Connecticut, to approve same-sex marriage.


*hat tip to my hubby, who will say absolutely anything.

Transcript of the first Voice of the Nation

homophobia, homosexual, obama, united, nations, resolution, gay, prop 8, marriage, tradition, angela, rockwood, drew, dna, ufi, united, families
In case you missed it (and I certainly hope you did), here is a reaction transcript of Drew and Angie talking homophobia. It will probably work best if you read along as you listen to the stupidity, but feel free to try it without. (It gets VERY interesting down at the end, if you feel like skipping ahead.)

Um, um, um, um, um

Angie’s protecting my freedom? Really? Because she seems to want to take it away. Funny how people who talk about freedom the most are the ones who like freedom the least.

kinda

Um, um, um, um, um,

Kind of

Um, um, um, um,

Gay marriage is the fight of the century? Seriously? We’re in an economic meltdown the likes of which was last seen during the great depression and her homophobia is the fight of the century?

Kinda

Um, um, um

So

Uh, um, um, um

You know, I guess

Ah, ah, um, uh, um, kinda, um, uh

California, Iowa, Minnesota

Um, um, uh, ah, um, um

Voters voted for it.

Vermont, Minnesota

Um, um, um, uh, ah, um

Florida gay adoption battle

debunked studies, misunderstandings of difference between sex and gender (for the last time people, sex is what genitalia you are born with, gender refers to societal expectations based on those genitalia.)

Democrats suck!

Um, ah, um, um, uh, ah

More debunked studies, plugging UFI, asskissing between UFI and DNA

MSM, think of the children!, gender, science- it's science!

um, uh, um, uh

back to Vermont

one man and one woman

um, um, uh, ah, um, um, ah

Laura Knaperek, works at UFI, is the "inaugural guest", is a conservative's conservative who knows how to "bring it".

The UN rules the world! Run, it's Ban Ki-Moon!

Laura is both easily excited and easily impressed.

UFI's history: Women who hate feminists started UFI in 1978 to protest to the UN, hence becoming, well, a certain kind of female activists, which could be referred to . . . I think you can see where I'm going with this. They're certainly not at home, raising children and baking pies.

And then, Angie rather obliquely replies to me. She asks Laura why protesting nonbinding UN resolutions is so very important. See, I had a post in response to a post of hers that pointed out that the UN does not rule the world. So, Angie's question is aimed at me. The answer she gets is . . . interesting.

Basically, Laura states that sovereign nations create laws based on UN nonbinding resolutions. Laura's being disingenuous here. Every member nation of the UN is free to sign or not sign nonbinding resolutions. Even when they are ratified, they are, as the name implies, nonbinding. The fact of the matter is, a nation that signs a UN resolution is doing so because they already have, or intend to have, similar laws in their own country. A country entirely opposed to such a law would not sign the resolution. I suppose the argument could be made that if many countries have a certain law- say decriminalizing homosexuality- other countries might be peer pressured into creating a similar law, however, that seems unlikely. I highly doubt Iran is going to be peer pressured into being nice to gays.*

Also, using this same logic, we can see that ideas are dangerous, in that we make laws out of them!

Reproductive health services are BAD!BAD!BAD! Poor women around the world should NOT be allowed pap smears and birth control.

Gender stereotypes are good!

To these asshats, abstinence is HIV prevention. Of course, if your husband comes to the marriage with HIV, abstinence isn't really going to help you. Oh, and condoms=promiscuous sex. Who knew?

Laura is now arguing that homosexuals should not have human rights, and should be subject to the death penalty. Charming.

Now Drew tries to back away from that, stating that UFI does think homosexuals should have human rights, but shouldn't be recognized by the UN. That's the ticket. And not at all what Laura said.

Laura doesn't even try to agree with him. Drew gets uncomfortable. Angie agrees with Laura. Nobody likes Obama.

What can you do to help UFI? Go to the website, give them money, money, money, do what they tell you, bother your congressman, blog.

Kiss butt, kiss butt, see you next week.

*When you find yourself on the same page as Iran when it comes to human rights, you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque. A really wrong turn.

Quote Mining Will Now Be Referred to As Pulling a Fitz

fitz, opine, stupid, asshat, quote mining, gay, marriage, tradition, children, iowa, homophobia, homosexual, prop 8,
We will now refer to quote mining as "pulling a Fitz". In case you've missed my running argument with Fitz from the Opine Editorials, here it is. In this argument, Fitz, who is a lawyer and really ought to know better, pulls quotes from Varnum v. Brien. Being a bigoted Opiner, Fitz of course is trying to prove that gays shouldn't be allowed near children, gay marriage ruins straight marriage, and gays should get back into the closet and stay there this time, damnit!

Cute, but Fitzy, I'd like to see you pull this shit in front of a judge.

Fitzy's comment to Efficacy and Reasoning.

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.

. . .

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),

. . .

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.

Here's the thing: The Iowa Court found IN FAVOR of same sex marriage. Yes, in the same case that Fitzy cites to argue against same sex marriage.

Varnum v. Brien, page 62

It Is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:
I. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendant's
opposing motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

2. Iowa Code §595.2(1) is hereby nullified, severed and stricken from Iowa
Code Chapter 595.

3. All remaining provisions ofIowa Code Chapter 595 are to be interpreted in a
gender-neutral manner so as not to exclude couples ofthe same sex from
eligibility for a marriage license.

4. Defendant is hereby enjoined from refusing to issue marriage licenses to
Plaintiffs or any other same-sex couples who a) are otherwise eligible for said
licenses pursuant to Chapter 595 as amended and interpreted by this order,
and b) who properly apply for such licenses.

5. Court costs are hereby taxed to Defendant.

Dated this 30th day ofAugust, 2007.

Way to pull a fitz, Fitz.

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.

Run, Walrus, Run!

gay, marriage, traditional, prop 8, stupid,
Apparently, I hurt someone's feelings. Since that someone is a judgey homophobe, I'm not feeling bad about it.

I repeat, gays that are currently married in California married at a time that that same sex marriage was legal. Therefore, any comparison of their marriages to counterfeit anything is invalid.

Nice try.

Try again, and try harder this time, okay?

Jackass.

I Have a Headache

false, analogy, illogical, illiterate, stupid, jackass, asshat, christian, playful, walrus, prop 8, california, homophobia, homosexual, gay, tradition, traditional, marriage,
and this guy is pissing me off.

Trust me, it's never worth it to read an entire post by The Playful Walrus, so I'll just give you the first paragraph. (Feel free to click the link, but don't come back here complaining that I didn't warn you.)

What if you were a California voter who had an earned degree from the University of California Los Angeles – a state institution – and someone else who did not attend the university nor did the coursework insisted that spending his time sunning himself on the beach was just as valid use of his time, and demanded he also be awarded the same degree from UCLA?

This is a false analogy. Same sex couples didn't just wake up one day and call themselves married. At the time they were married, California law allowed them to marry legally.

Try again.

Jackass.

Lying Liars and The Lies They Love

liar, prop 8, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, mullarkey
Woe is Maureen Mullarkey, who was exposed as a bigot when the San Francisco Chronicle published her home address as a Prop 8 supporter.

Well, no, not really.

The San Francisco Chronicle didn't publish anyone's home address.

The Chronicle never printed her home address -- or the address of any donor to any political cause.

Ms. Mullarkey, an artist, did contribute $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause.

But her political donation to a statewide initiative was public information, and available -- as are all such donations -- on the Web site of the California secretary of state. Like the Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee and the Orange County Register, The Chronicle gave its readers that information. The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to us by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone -- as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

Why tell the truth when a lie fits your ideology better?

When I Am King

end the lies, liar, fear, fearmongering, dna, homophobia, homosexual, gay, prop 8, bigotry
You will be first again the wall / With your opinion which is of no consequence at all.

Radiohead, Paranoid Android

Nominate your favorite "voice of fear" to be on the wall at End the Lies. It's fun!

End the Lies

homosexual, homophobia, gay, marriage, tradition, traditional, prop 8, ken starr
Go ahead, tell the world. It's not okay to discriminate. End the lies.

Redefining Optimum

homophobia, homosexual, ivf, childless, children, babies, infertile, infertility, lesbian, gay, prop 8, stupid,
I won't bore you with the entire post, mostly because it just makes my stomach hurt, but the salient details in the back story are: Lesbian couple in Scotland wants the same access to government sponsored IVF that hetero couples in the UK enjoy. Government says "go have sex with men." Lesbian couple sues and wins.

Now for emissary's conclusion on all this:

The regrettable part of this story is that the board eventually changed its mind after being sued. It sets a bad precedence for two specific reasons. The first is that it forces the taxpayer money to pay for children who will be given to a home without a mother and a father. The second is that, since IVF is so expensive, the government may not be able to help as many heterosexual couples who could provide a more optimal life for their children.

First of all, it sets a bad precedent, taxpayers will pay, not taxpayer money, and the children will be born in the home, not given to the home.

Now that I've corrected the basic English, let's review emissary's argument. Basically, if the government pays for IVF for homosexuals, less heterosexuals will be able to have babies, and heterosexual couples are automatically better parents.

The first argument is patently false on its face. The UK health care system (socialism!) views infertility the same as any other medical condition and pays for a certain number of treatments over a certain time period. For everyone. If more people need IVF, more IVF will be paid for, they won't ration it any more than they would ration bypass surgery. They may well raise taxes to pay for the increase in IVF, but heteros will still get the same amount of IVF as they always were.

The second argument relies on debunked research into same sex parenting. Hetero couples are not automatically better parents than gay couples. (Research does show that children do better with two parents instead of one, but that has to do with economics and the time available with the child, not the sex of the parents.) According to emissary, a man and a woman are automatically better parents, even if the man is a pedophile and the woman is a junkie. When you find yourself making that argument, you need to admit that you're a homophobe, and that you don't really like children all that much.