Same-sex Marriage.

[_wenglund]

Wade, I hate to beat a dead horse, but these statistics were not used by FRC to show that gay couples are unlikely to stay married but rather that they are unlikely to marry when given the chance. The statistics have nothing to do with whether married people stay married, and indeed the FRC didn't make that claim using these statistics. To know how likely gay couples would be to stay married, you'd need data from married gay couples, which you didn't provide.

In hopes of saving you from having to unnecessarily and unwarrantably beat the dead horse, let me clarify that I mentioned "staying married" because it was a key part of the conclusion I stated here (though not on my blog post), and it was also a key factor of consideration in the FRC article. And, since the point I was making in my last post regarding "ending up married" also applies in principle to "staying married," I thought I would include it in the mix to hopefully prevent having to repeat it down the road.

Evidently, though, I was mistaken, and it appears that there is more dead horse to be beating ahead.

Accordingly, it is important to keep straight which statistics I (and FRC) use to support the respective portions of my (and FRC's) conclusions. I (and FRC) am not using the "end up married" statistics alone in support of my conclusion about "staying married." I (we) provide other statistics as well.

If you think my (and FRC's) conclusion about "stay married" is unsupported by all the statistics I (we) provide, then let's put them all on the table and see. Let me know if you still want to go there.

Actually, I did exactly that. As Sock Puppet pointed out, the comparison would have been faulty had I included all married heterosexuals, so I ran the numbers based on those who would have had the opportunity to marry during the time of the study.

Both you and Sock Puppet are mistaken. You keep conflating "get married during a period of time" with "end up married." Your numbers apply to the former, but are not sufficient for the latter. I, and FRC, speak to the latter.

I haven't scathingly accused you of anything, Wade, and I apologize if you took it that way. As I said, my guess is that you aren't very good at statistical analysis and you unfortunately trust some sources that aren't very trustworthy.

Whether it was scathing or otherwise, you leveled layers of criticism against me and my sources, and as it turns out, your criticism may have been unwarranted projections, including about not being very good with statistical analysis.

The point being, your criticisms of me and my sources has flowed like a fire hose, whereas your stated self-assessment appears to have been but a trickle, and if anything the reverse might have been warranted. All I am suggesting is that you might want to hesitate before risking motes and beams.

Let me see if I have your "claims" right:

1. Given the opportunity, gay couples are less likely to get married than heterosexuals are.

Again, your use of the term "get married" is incorrect. The correct term is "end up married." This is an important distinction that you need to finally get so that you don't keep repeating your same mistaken and misdirected criticism.

2. Gay marriages don't last as long as heterosexual marriages.

If by "marriage" you include all legalized relationships, then that is correct. I also factor in non-legalized committed relationships (or, as some scientists call it, "cohabitation"). And, to an extent I look at non-committed relationships for their "suggestive" usefulness.

3. Together, these two statistics show that gay couples don't really want commitment.

No. As I actually said, my conclusion is that: "homosexuals are far less inclined than heterosexuals to end up in and stay in a legal committed relationship, including marriage, where permitted.

So, again, I'm asking you to show some data that supports these 3 claims.

In my blog I have already provide the statistics for the claims that I actually made.

If you have a legitimate criticism regarding the statistics that I actually use and the conclusions I actually make, then feel free to present your case. Thus far, you haven't done so. Instead, you have merely flogged a straw horse.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

To simplify matters, it may prove useful to separate the criticism of me from the criticism of FRC.

Since the criticism of me is more important and germane to me and what I said on my blog and here, I think it best to address my alleged misuse of statistics. And, once that is settled, then we can take up the tangential matter of FRC.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Again, your use of the term "get married" is incorrect. The correct term is "end up married." This is an important distinction that you need to finally get so that you don't keep repeating your same mistaken and misdirected criticism.

The FRC doesn't use "end up married" at all. They specifically used the rate at which people "enter into marriage." As I've shown, that rate is higher for gay couples than for heterosexual couples.

As for "staying married," neither you nor the FRC has provided any data about the duration of gay marriages.

If by "marriage" you include all legalized relationships, then that is correct. I also factor in non-legalized committed relationships (or, as some scientists call it, "cohabitation"). And, to an extent I look at non-committed relationships for their "suggestive" usefulness.

You omit non-committed heterosexual relationships, hence the problem with your research.

No. As I actually said, my conclusion is that: "homosexuals are far less inclined than heterosexuals to end up in and stay in a legal committed relationship, including marriage, where permitted.

If that's what you really meant, that's fine, but the data doesn't show that at all, either. Of course, that's been my point all along.

I have already provide the statistics for the claims that I actually made.

If you have a legitimate criticism regarding the statistics that I actually use and the conclusions I actually make, then feel free to present your case. Thus far, you haven't done so. Instead, you have merely flogged a straw horse.

My criticism from the beginning is that your data doesn't support your claims. Even if we change the language to match what you're saying above, it doesn't change that. You still have no evidence supporting your claims because you haven't shown how the desire of gay couples for committed relationships compares to that of heterosexual couples. To support the belief that ""homosexuals are far less inclined than heterosexuals to end up in and stay in a legal committed relationship, including marriage, where permitted," you need two pieces of data:

1. Information about the inclination of heterosexuals to "end up and stay in a legal, committed relationship."
2. Information about the inclination of homosexuals to "end up and stay in a legal, committed relationship."

You've got the first, but only part of the second (and that part shows a greater inclination to "end up in a legal, committed relationship." Until you have the second part about the desire to stay in a legal, committed relationship, you can't make any supported claims comparing the two groups.


So, again, here are the claims, changing the wording slightly to match the FRC's claim:

1. Given the opportunity, gay couples are less likely to "enter into such legally recognized unions" (civil unions and marriages) than heterosexuals are.
2. Gay "legally recognized unions" don't last as long as heterosexual marriages.
3. Together, these two statistics show that gay couples don't really want commitment.

Again, the statistics show that #1 is false, there are no statistics for #2, and therefore, it's impossible to support #3 with data.

Once again, please provide evidence to back up these claims. Thus far, you haven't provided anything.

[_Fence Sitter]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

[_Runtu]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

Nothing. The FRC is apparently happy to let heterosexuals get married, even though they are less likely than homosexuals to get married, all other things being equal.

As far as unintended consequences, I really have no idea. Perhaps it's that legalizing marriage isn't attractive to gays (a claim disproven by the statistics Wade cites), so it's not worth messing with the definition of marriage. Other than that, I don't know.

[_Blixa]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

Absolutely nothing of course.

I just don't know why runtu is going to the polite lengths he is over such crude and appalling arguments.

Some people's lives are punishment enough. Let them live with their ignorance and resentment.

[_Runtu]

Absolutely nothing of course.

I just don't know why runtu is going to the polite lengths he is over such crude and appalling arguments.

Some people's lives are punishment enough. Let them live with their ignorance and resentment.

Maybe I'm just naïve, but I can't figure out why Wade doesn't see the problems in his arguments and the lack of support for them in the data.

Imagine if I said the following:

1. Bananas are more popular than grapefruit because, when given the choice, 33% chose bananas, and 31% chose grapefruit.
2. Bananas are high in potassium.
3. Therefore, bananas taste better and are more nutritional than grapefruit.

What's the problem with this data?

Imagine that I then discovered that the data actually showed that more people chose grapefruit than chose bananas.

Would it be reasonable to continue claiming #3 above?

That's essentially what we have here.

[_Darth J]

Wade, I want you to say unequivocally that you read and understood this study, and that you think it supports a claimed "unintended consequence" of same-sex marriage.

If I cited the study for the purpose of supporting a claimed "unintended consequence," rather than in support of a specific claim about the percentage of homosexuals who enter into committed relationships lasting more than 7 years, then your request might have pertinence.

Your blog purports to be about "leftist" negative unintended consequences of same-sex marriage. And what you just said here reiterates your assertion that you think the alleged unwillingness of most same-sex couples to get married is in some ill-defined way a negative unintended consequence of legally recognizing same-sex marriages.

Whether you're shamelessly intellectually dishonest or simply have abysmally poor reading skills is a moot point. Either way, I'll just give you a head's up that this study in no way supports what you're attempting to assert. So please say first that you have indeed read it and think you understood it, before I show otherwise. That way, we can avoid further after-the-fact statements by you to the effect that, "I knew that, but you don't understand my point."

If I thought you correctly grasped what the study was specifically intended to support, then I might be concern about your "heads up."

But, I appreciate the back-handed way you are looking out for me. What a guy!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm not claiming to look out for you, Wade. I am explicitly saying that you're full of crap. Having read the protracted Gish gallop that is your blog, there is no discernible reason to believe that you even know what your links are intended to support. But look, Wade, as far as my supposed failure to grasp what you're saying---a failure that is apparently shared by every single person with whom you interact---blame God for your Asperger's, not me.

Do you want to concede the point right now that this study does not support an argument against a right to same-sex marriage? Or should I go ahead and demonstrate it?

[_EAllusion]

What does the propensity to make a decision have to do with the right to make it?

Nothing. Simply because the vast majority of people are declining when presented with the opportunity to tithe to the LDS Church doesn't mean people shouldn't have the legal right to do so if they so choose.

But that's not the full argument here. This is where reading the unhinged rants of someone like Droopy is helpful for understanding the mindset of where arguments like this lead. The idea is to demonstrate that homosexuals or their advocates aren't interested in normal marriage practices per se, but rather are seeking to normalize homosexuality and change the institution of marriage into something less noble, less ideal for society than the formation of committed nuclear families. It's a psychological strong-arm tactic on this view. The idea is to portray gays as promiscuous, deviant, and armed with threatening ulterior motives.

[_Runtu]

The idea is to demonstrate that homosexuals or their advocates aren't interested in normal marriage practices per se, but rather are seeking to normalize homosexuality and change the institution of marriage into something less noble, less ideal for society than the formation of committed nuclear families. It's a psychological strong-arm tactic on this view. The idea is to portray gays as promiscuous, deviant, and armed with threatening ulterior motives.

That is clearly the intent of the FRC "study." I'm glad it's not just me who recognizes that. I haven't read anything from them until now, but that paper led me to dig around their web site, and they are clearly an advocacy group that is willing to invent and manipulate data to suit their purposes.