In the interest of speeding the discussion along, I am going to presume that the term "specific claims" is being confused with "conclusion," whereas it is was meant to be synonymous with "statistic." And, since Runtu has said that "It's not that the statistic is wrong, Wade," then we can now look his criticism of me, "that you misused it."
In the same interest, and Runtu can correct me if I am wrong, I will take it that my alleged "misuse" is in regards to the conclusion I didn't state in my blog post, but stated it here. And, I am assuming that the nature of my alleged "misuse" is principally the same as the alleged "misuse" in the FRC article.
Here is one of the offending FRC statements:
{quote]By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.[/quote]
And, here is what Runtu said about it:
Whoops. Here we're comparing apples and oranges.
Heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting heterosexual couples by 7 to 1.
Homosexual married couples compare to cohabiting homosexual couples by ... oh, snap! They don't actually provide those numbers.
Let's look at the real comparison.
In 4 years, 21% of gay adults married in Vermont. By comparison, in the United States in the late 2000s the number of people recording marriages averaged just over 4.2 million per year out of an adult population of approximately 236 million. So, using the same methodology of the FRC, about 17 million adults were married over that 4-year period, or about 7% of the adult population, meaning that 93% of adult heterosexuals chose not to marry.
But wait, only 49% of Americans are single, meaning that, even if we underestimate and say that 118 million Americans were eligible to marry, only 14% of Americans chose to marry, meaning that 86% of Americans chose not to marry.
So, the real "shocking" statistic is that, when given the opportunity, gay couples are at least 150% more likely to marry than are their heterosexual counterparts.
Somebody has some 'splaining to do.
At first glance, one might think that Runtu is really on to something here, and indeed, he believes that of himself by boasting, "but still, even an English major can spot when a comparison is faulty or deceptive, as in this case."
And, he may very well have been onto something were FRC and I attempting to comparatively establish the rate at which the parties
get "married" over a given period of time, rather than comparatively establishing the rate at which the parties
end up "married" as well as the rate at which they
remain "married". (I am using the term "married" here as shorthand for all legalized relationships, including civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the like)
Given that, at least in my case, it is the latter two, then there is a huge omission in Runtu's analysis--i.e. the substantial number of heterosexuals who were already married prior to the period in question. Or, said another way, Runtu mistakenly only considered the set of people eligible to
get married, and failed to rightly also factor in the set of people who had already
ended up married.
When one rightly factors in the previously married heterosexuals into the set of people who
end up married, then suddenly the picture on the screen is un-skewed, and it turns out that Wade (and the FRC), were not misusing the data, but correctly using it as they intended.
Now, I am not going to scathingly lecture Runtu about what is required to have reasonable conversation. I am not going to crow about my findings. I am not going to cast aspersions on his sources or his ability to analyze statistics. Nor am I going to accuse him of dishonest use or misuse of the data. Rather, I will reasonably chalk it up to an honest mistake on his part.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
