http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/10/27/debunking-noms-hateful-arguments Comments On: Debunking NOM's Hateful Arguments by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 22:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Ever seen a women's public restroom?

DRF you're an idiot.
Posted by Ophian]]> Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:57:29 -0700 The Stranger Here Come the Brides. But I am still thinking along the lines of wondering why something that might have been so at one point in time necessarily has to be What Was in the Beginning, Is Now, and Ever Shall Be.
Posted by vennominon]]> Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:08:10 -0700 The Stranger
You get to select *which* women have such a "civilizing" effect while still implying that it applies equally to All Men? Sorry, sunshine, that dog is a pacifist and refuses to hunt. It's a neat trick; by not specifying you get to conflate Men as a Whole (IF your point is true, and we still have not yet settled on a definition of "civilized" - on that score I refuse to accept any straight definition, so that we may come to an impassable barrier on that beginning point) with All Men, and almost my whole point is that the two are not conflatable.

And you are still just repeating your mantra as if it were a Truth Universally Acknowledged. Your conclusion of 82 appears to be a bit of backtracking, or at least bet-hedging, or possibly trying to have all cakes and eat them too. But, as the point of maintaining a disagreement WITH GOOD WILL (which you left out of your paragraph on agreeing to disagree), I am running out of things to say, as I am not going to resort to name calling.

Trying to find a point of civil discussion, it might advance the conversation for me to ask why you think gay and straight men won't get different results in this particular measurement. It's not as if we're exactly identical in all other situations and circumstances.
Posted by vennominon]]> Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:49:17 -0700 The Stranger Posted by clashfan]]> Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:40:11 -0700 The Stranger
In my experience, "Let's agree to disagree" means "I am tired of talking about this, so YOU must shut up." I don't think you should have to shut up at my whim. You don't need my permission to post or not post on any subject.

@76 I hold an advanced degree in history. This isn't anecdotal so much as a pattern that has repeated itself. Men move out by themselves and behave wildly. When women move in, the men's behavior changes.

The presence of women does have a civilizing effect on men, but I do not maintain it is the only civilizing influence on men. The presence of a goal or outside pressure that necessitates discipline is another.
Posted by DRF]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 16:23:17 -0700 The Stranger So far you've managed to prove that one example of studies being misused/misinterpreted by anti-gay politicians is really just a case of the argument being misleading, not actually false. Well done.
Posted by venomlash]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:46:36 -0700 The Stranger
FWIW, the only harm I came to from my upbringing is all directly related to the fact that my parents could not marry.
Posted by Geni]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:47:57 -0700 The Stranger
What part of Minnery's assertion, that “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.” is not supported by the HHS study he cites?
Posted by fatalbert]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:07:47 -0700 The Stranger Under our legal system, men and women are considered equal. Since marriage is a civil institution in this country, there is no legal difference between a marriage consisting of two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If you want to draw some distinction, you need to bring evidence; otherwise you're violating the Equal Protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment.
@75: Yes, the study didn't include gay families. THEREFORE, you can't draw any conclusions either way about the quality of gay parenting. Senator Franken said that Minnery was being misleading, which he was; Minnery implied that the study had found gay parenting inferior, which it had not.
It's not hard to understand, which leads me to believe that you simply don't want to understand it. Perhaps your small mind is not ready for the truth...
Posted by venomlash]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:53:10 -0700 The Stranger Please tell us ANY city, county or state that guarantees ANYONE the right to marry whom they LOVE.....Or that asks a couple if they are in LOVE when they marry.Probably about as many as ask them if they are biologically capable of, or have any intention toward, breeding. Seems that, from the state's view, marriage is wholly about the consolidation of resources. Actually, maybe not even that; I've never seen a marriage license that asked whether you intended to move in together, open a joint account, or share a vehicle.

In point of fact, most state marriage licenses require very little in terms of specifics.

Now, as to the social, psychological, or spiritual reasons that people decide to marry, I'd be curious to see how many successful marriages in the last century (or six; eros became, at least in literature and art, the foundation of marriage sometime around the Renaissance) were not entered into for love . . . and of those who weren't, how many were successful precisely because of any infidelities (that is, if there's no eros in the marriage, mightn't one seek this very basic human interest--one might say "need"--elsewhere?).
Posted by thelyamhound]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:21:29 -0700 The Stranger
@75 "I would think that" does not mean "it is". It means "I'm guessing". He did not know the answer to the question. That entire passage you quoted reads to me as showing this study having as much to do with the issue of same sex households as one about, oh, how reading to your children improves school grades. The particular study wasn't studying same sex families, wasn't measuring same sex families, and tells us nothing about same sex families. It doesn't count as "one for your side" simply because it doesn't support the other side. It's irrelevant.

Posted by agony]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 09:07:19 -0700 The Stranger
more name calling?
we are going to have to cancel your subscription to MSNBC, it seems.

Let's roll the tape.....

>>>"FRANKEN: Mr. Minnery, on page 8 of your written testimony, you write, quote, “children living in their own married biological or adoptive — with their own biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier and happier, had better access to healthcare, less likely to suffer mild or severe emotional problems, did better in school, were protected from physical, emotional and sexual abuse and almost never live in poverty, compared with children in any other family form.”
You cite a Department of Health and Human Services study that I have right here, from December 2010, to support this conclusion. I checked the study out. And I would like to enter it into the record if I may."

How about what Minnery said, VenomWhore?
Could one conclude from the HHS study that " “children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers were generally healthier ...."?
(remember how many heterosexual married couples were in the sample and how many homosexual married couples were in the sample before you answer....)

Are you familiar with the concept and phrase "Difference without a Distinction", VenomWhore?

Big Al is about to give us an example.....

>>>"FRANKEN: And it actually doesn’t say what you said it says. It says that nuclear families, not opposite sex married families, are associated with those positive outcomes."

(the record will note that the phrase "opposite sex married families" is actually Al's and not Mr Minnery's...)

OK, VenomWhore, help the Senator out.
In the HHS study as conducted is there any difference between the phrase 'nuclear family' and the description of those families as "“children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"?

Were any statistically significant number of the sample size NOT “children living in their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"

OK.

Now Big Al indilges in some innane trivis.....

>>>"FRANKEN: Isn’t it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?"

What is the point of that?

"NO" married same sex couple actually WERE in the study so why does Al bring it up, VenomWhore?

>>>"MINNERY: I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families, would mean a family headed by a husband and wife."

Was Minnery right, VenomWhore?

In the cited HHS study does "nuclear family" = “children living with their own married biological or adoptive mothers and fathers"?

You are a bright lad, VenomWhore.

Perhaps you can explain to Al that he was Wrong and as Asshole to boot.

Because here is Al's conclusion...

>>>"FRANKEN: It doesn’t... And I frankly, don’t really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways."


Posted by Franken is a Gaping AssHole]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:06:27 -0700 The Stranger
oh no ANOTHER epic reading comprehension fail.

Traditional Heterosexual Marriage is a Time Tested Proven Winner for Society.

Dilettantes who come along trying to change it to reflect their faddish whims have the burden of proof before they can expect Society to follow them over the ledge.
Posted by Look! Pretty Colours!]]> Tue, 30 Oct 2012 06:00:15 -0700 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:46:57 -0700 The Stranger
The Troll is in favor of Traditional Heterosexual Marriage.

Which studies show to be the most favorable circumstance under which to raise children.


Posted by DingDong]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:04:48 -0700 The Stranger The study did not specifically include or exclude gays from any of its categories. NONE of its methodology or results had anything to do with sexual orientation. Like I've been saying, and like Senator Franken said, it doesn't say anything about gay couples versus straight couples. He never said, nor did I, that there were gay couples in the study sample, only that they would fall under the study's definition of "nuclear family".
I really don't understand why you can't seem to wrap your head around this. It's not difficult to comprehend. Perhaps you, like Tom Minnery, feel the need to put your words into the mouths of others rather than attempt to debate an issue on the facts of the matter.
Posted by venomlash]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:41:40 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:27:50 -0700 The Stranger
Disappointing, that.

But way too late to weasel out now.

Senator Chuckles insisted the study described homosexual marriages as well.

(You agreed)

He was actually a first rate asshole about it.

Asshole and Ignorant are a toxic brew.....

Let us help you out:

There were no homosexual marriages in the USA before 2004.

In mid 2004 Mass started, and about 6000 gay marriages were performed the rest of that year.

The years thereafter saw about a thousand a year; so about 7000 in 2005, 8000 in 2006 and 9000 by 2007.

The HHS study surveyed a quarter million families from 2001-2007.

There were about 55 million marriages in the nation those years.
(you may find a different figure but that is pretty close...)

So for the first 3 and a half years of the study there were ZERO married homosexual couples included and for the next four and a half years there were about 6-9,000 gay married couples in a pool of 55 MILLION heterosexual married couples.

Do you know what percentage 8,000 of 55,000,000 is?

We believe scientific geniuses like you call that 'statistically insignificant'.

So when Senator Bafoon insisted that the study included homosexual married couples he was blowing bullshit out his ass.

Perhaps you can explain it to him so he can apologize......


Posted by A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste. Al should donate his..]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:53:32 -0700 The Stranger
Your example seems weak. First, my concern is explicitly with gay men in this conversation, and you deliberately select a concrete example from a period when there was no generally understood concept of homosexuality as a benign sexual orientation. Apples and oranges. You also appear to be lumping all men together while selecting a subgroup of women, unless you meant that all women would be considered "respectable." And you can't really say that gay men behaved better in such situations anyway. I could see straight men interested in the new arrivals acting in what they thought to be a woman-attracting way, but there are too many variables to examine given the weather threat.

As the storm is here and I may lose power at any moment, I shall be content for now with the example of, say, home-schooling. Suppose a male couple with a male child living in a hostile community decided to home-school; wouldn't that set off your alarm? It would also seem, at first thought, that there would be tons of data that two female parents vastly outperform two male parents, unless there's a point of diminishing returns, but I am rushing due to occasional power flickers in order to get this off, and my thoughts will be incomplete. I do apologize; please blame the weather.

I'm thinking of a hypothetical but I really have to get off line now. Sorry again.
Posted by vennominon]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:45:33 -0700 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:18:52 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:05:09 -0700 The Stranger

Posted by DRF]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:54:31 -0700 The Stranger
My purely anecdotal observations on this are that it seems to hold true when we are talking about the very young, (but I wonder how much this has to do with *parents* having a civilizing effect on the very young, and girls tending to stay closer to their parents when they first leave home) but not to the fully adult. I've had some exposure to nearly wholly male environments - work camps in the bush - and they tend to quickly set up a society, with rules that most follow, that seem to fit the definition of 'civilized'. They are different from mixed or all female societies, yes, but not more barbaric once you get to know them.
Posted by agony]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 07:17:24 -0700 The Stranger
I do not believe that men arrive at adulthood with their degree of civilized-ness essentially fixed.

For your vitamin analogy, I'd say that most men in the modern U.S. get their daily recommended intake regardless of whether they go home to a wife or work with women or just generally interact with women during the day. No I do not believe that exposure to men, regardless of the nature of the relationship, has the same effect as exposure to women. I suppose that living with a woman has more of an effect than interacting with women elsewhere.

I didn't say anything about couples' ability to raise children. I'm talking about whether the presence of women civilizes men.

@61 I didn't say anything about the effect of men on women, but girls in single-sex classes tend to speak more and get higher grades, so it's arguable that the presence of boys makes girls dumb themselves down and attempt to be more pleasing. I guess you could reduce that to "whining, harping bitches," but it might be more accurate to say that girls become less assertive.
Posted by DRF]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:43:57 -0700 The Stranger
How many married homosexual couples were there in the United States when the study was conducted?
Posted by this is an easy one....]]> Mon, 29 Oct 2012 05:21:46 -0700 The Stranger