The Empathy of Mittens

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey NiK, have you stopped beating your wife?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You asked how would I respond to the question that Mitt was asked? That's how.

The question asked of Romney is the same sort of question. It assumes what it is trying to prove. It assumes that Romney is trying to do X, just like my question assumes that you've beaten your wife in the past.

[Wisconsin+17]

As for Gay marriage, it's not just about marriage. It's about where you believe the culture should be. Gay marriage proponents argue that barring them from marriage is akin to the civil rights struggle, minus that whole slavery and Jim Crow thing. They argue that opposition to gay marriage is akin to wanting to lynch gay people.

As a Christian, I believe that America's prosperity is tied to her faith. Nations, and peoples that turn away from God and his teachings suffer from moral and spiritual decline. America has been in considerable decline for some time now, and it shows.

The gay marriage proponents do not believe that it is about marriage, but about culture. They want a culture that puts Christ in the closet, where one cannot share one's faith in public, where the mention of Christ's sacrifice on the cross bars you from public employment. Where Christians are forced to pay money to support causes that are contrary to their faith, where they have to pay for contraception, for abortion, for all manner of 'public goods' that they do not want and do not want to participate.

For this reason, we have books promoting homosexuality being introduced to children in grade 1 and kindergarten.

Is it just about marriage? Obviously not. Why then would they be insisting that children spend time with these books?

That is why I oppose gay marriage. Because it's not just about marriage. Never has been.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like Mitt at all, and yes, the question asked of him assumed what it was trying to prove.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the question ought to have been posed:

"I've been living with my partner for years. What do you believe I should tell my child about our relationship?"

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll paraphrase:

"Since we already know you hate gay people with a passion beyond that of a firey sun, what do you believe I should tell my child of X years about my partner?"

[Wisconsin+17]

It's a good question, there's no need to make it a leading question.

I'd probably answer with the following.

"Why not tell her the truth? Tell her, 'I believe that my sexual desires are more important than the need for you to have a father.'

Or you can tell her that I'm an evil man keeping you from being truly happy."

Whichever makes you sleep better at night.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is substantial evidence that children do best of all with a mother and father who are the mom and dad, married together and present. All other alternatives result, on average, in poorer outcomes when measured in educational attainment, income, employment, etc.

This is not the same as saying that all people in situation x are going to be worse than all people in situation y. However, it does state that, on average, this is the best outcome of all for children.

So if your primary goal and desire is to provide the best environment for the child to thrive, this should be your goal. If your primary goal is something else - then by all means, go ahead.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You did the analyses. It wasn't statistically significant. Ergo, there was no inverse correlation, simply noise. For a correlation to exist and not simply be an artifact of the sample it has to be statistically significant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Change for change sake isn't sufficient. I realize you don't feel that way, but in order for a policy change to be enacted, it ought to provoke positive change. That did not happen. Ergo, I do not believe that the change is worth it. You're free to disagree with me, but we ran the numbers. No correlation. The problem is that there's just not enough gay people to move the overall numbers significantly in one direction or another. Even if there was a negative impact, it would not show.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Black/Black has worse outcomes than White/Black or White/White. Ergo, your thesis has a false premise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Scarce dollars suggests that the state has an interest to spend those dollars on the best case scenario (married mother and father), not on alternatives.

Now, if you have a specific point concerning this specific point, then fire away. Else, since you're an incredibly busy man, you should spend your precious time elsewhere.

[Wisconsin+17]

.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the first response is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This tells me that I hit the nail square on the head.

People believe that men and women are interchangeable parts. They do not believe that there is a role or a need for fathers in the lives of their children.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Black people should have children after getting married, and stay married to the father of their children. That is why they are having trouble. Something like 70 percent of all black children are growing up in broken homes.

With respect to adoption - yes, I believe that placements should be made with a married husband and wife before any other alternatives are considered.

[Wisconsin+17]

You know that's not how statistical significance works, and that it operates on a probabilistic spectrum.  But that's not the point:  Did you, or did you not, affirm your original hypothesis?  Do you, or do you not, still believe the claim you made originally?  I am pretty sure you didn't abandon it, but I may be wrong.

What, that legalization of gay marriage has a negative effect on divorce rates as a whole? No, I don't believe that to be the case. As you said, the evidence showed no correlation as a whole. That may change.

I suspect we will find a drop in overall marriage rates over time (ie, fewer people choosing to get married). We shall see.

1. If there is a correlation, even if it doesn't reach statistical significance, the effect is more likely to be positive than negative.

There is nothing to indicate that the result we did get is anything other than random fluctuations.

2. When have I ever said that I don't think policies should have net-positive effects?  Sometimes the net-positives can be more abstract, so I don't want to be overly simplistic about it, but we both agree that policies should do good and not bad.

Then I withdraw my comment. I apologize. I'm just saying, for me to support the policy requires a bigger jump than a statistically insignificant result. Surely you can respect that?

3. In sum, you are saying, "Eh, there's more likely to be a positive outcome than a negative one -- but screw it, it's not worth it."  Maybe there's an external reason for that but, all else being equal, this is a logically untenable argument.

I'm saying, "eh, that sucks. There's nothing to indicate any statistical correlation one way or another. This one's a punt".

How does that make for a false premise?  That doesn't even make sense.  What's the premise that's made false by this?

That interracial marriages do poorer than marriages that are single-race? If Black/Black does worse, then this premise is not true.

Anyway, your logic fails again.  Why throw money after incentivizing black/black couples to have children, if they have worse outcomes?  We should encourage them to marry white people, by that rationale.  The rationale here seems completely analogous, except partner racial preference is probably more flexible than sexual orientation; and shifting black/black marriages to interracial marriages would probably have relatively better outcomes than forcing gays to play straight.  Where there are differences in the analogy, they work against you.
 

Couple things here.

One, 'incentivization' comes into play with adoption. Yes, I think placements should be done to place with the best option available for the children.

Two, I don't believe that gay people should be forced play straight. Never said that. It depends on the gay person. Do I believe they can be happy getting married to a woman, having children? Absolutely. Do I believe they will be happy never getting married at all? Absolutely. Not getting married is a perfectly valid option for gay men and women.

Terrible response.  We have children who are waiting to be adopted.  Incentivizing gay relationships will increase in the number of gay couples seeking children to adopt, which is certainly a more efficacious use of societal resources than the foster care system.  You're identifying the wrong opportunity cost, presumably because you're ridiculous.

Massachusetts closed down a Catholic charity devoted to adoption simply because they did placements in accordance to their Catholic faith.

Are their children waiting to be adopted? Absolutely. Is the ideology of the state more important than seeing these children placed? Also true. If the state does not want Catholic charities operating on Catholic lines, then I see no reason to argue why the Church should provide adoptions to gay men and women at all. Quid pro quo.

I used to be on the other side of this argument, but, things change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd rather not resurrect another thread and another topic here, is all. That combined with your comment about how incredibly hard you worked and how strapped for time you were...

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Is this true for her? Absolutely. 100 percent.

Couple things here.

1. Romney is not responsible for her happiness or her unhappiness. If she is unhappy with her life at present then she needs to take steps to fix it. Is it Romney's responsibility to make her happy? No. Is it Romney's responsibility to provide for her child? Also no. She is attacking Romney because it makes her feel better to blame Romney for her difficulties.

2. What do I believe? Get married, have a kid, stay married, raise a kid. 4 things. Does she believe in these things? No. So why would my beliefs enter the picture here? She is asking me what she should tell her child about her relationship.

3. What do I want in a wife? Someone that I love, someone that is smart, someone that is willing to give the shirt off her back for other people just because. Do I want to wake up next to a pretty lady who wants to spend the rest of my life with her? Absolutely.

Am I the one with the kid in tow by a woman that I am not with and do not want to be with, trying to make things work with my bro of the month? No. Why? Because that's not what I believe and that's not what I want.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*sigh*.

The confidence intervals indicated that the pattern we did find could be attributed entirely to random chance. Flip a coin six times and have 4 heads and 2 tails. Is that a statistically significant sample? No. Just because the heads outnumbered the tails does not indicate that there is an inverse correlation, or even that an inverse correlation is more likely. All it indicates is that whatever the effect that gay marriage does have on the divorce rate, it is insufficient to change the divorce rate pattern in any statistically significant fashion.

Calling me 'math impaired' isn't assisting your argument here, btw. I do this work, and I'm really starting to get tired of you bringing this every time you get pissy with me. You tried to prove your point. You failed. Let it go.

"All else being equal, the evidence here is that the policy does more harm than good."

The evidence says no such thing. The evidence indicates no change in the general divorce pattern that can be attributed specifically to gay marriage. Stop lying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the difference is statistically insignificant? Absolutely not. We should treat them exactly the same rather then applying false attribution. This is bad science. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The relative sizes have no bearing on the percentage differences. Are you really a statistician? You certainly don't sound like one. Black/black marriages are more likely to fail than either black/white or white/white. That there are more white/white marriages and they are on average more likely to succeed actually puts more evidence in my favor than yours. Larger samples are less likely to bear extremes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not according to Massachusetts. Massachusetts says that it is better that the children do not get adopted at all, than to see Catholic adoption services place children in accordance with their beliefs.

Ergo - placing children outside of the ideal is actually more, not less harmful.

"stable gay couples might have marginally inferior outcomes to stable heterosexual relationships"

Again, MA was willing to shut down adoption agencies and see fewer placements than to see placements outside of what they believed to be the ideal. So clearly, placing children in inferior outcomes is not acceptable to the state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, you do realize that I believe that sex outside of marriage is sinful? If you choose not to marry, you're not having children to raise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the fact that the state was willing to shut down agencies that did not comply with their policies, even if that meant that fewer children were adopted, indicates that placing children in accordance with an ideal is more important than getting children placed in situations that are less than ideal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not, because that would mean you are wrong. Read up on it. The state said comply or close, so they closed. If the state valued children above their agenda then they would have permitted the Catholic adoption agency to continue to operate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was a physicist, so yes I do understand it. From what I can see, if the numbers support your bias, you'll defend them come hell or high water rather than admit that they are merely the result of random chance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do. You're just pissed off that you had to admit that the difference was and is statistically insignificant. Hey, it's your work. You want to argue that you screwed up, find by me. Doesn't enhance your credibility when I'm the one defending the accuracy of your work.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Declines in the overall marriage rate will instigate a rise in this "divorce rate" even if there are actually fewer divorces per capita. This is bad.

[Wisconsin+17]

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0133.pdf

MA marriage rate:

1990 2000 2010

7.9 5.8 5.5

MA divorce rate:

1990 2000 2010

2.8 2.5 2.2.

MA divorce/Marriage ratio:

.354, .431, .400

Marriages in Massachusetts today are less likely to occur and more likely to break up than in 1990, prior to the institution of gay marriage. Fact.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If MA's their best example, then the study is bunk.

The article's author is not measuring the 'divorce rate'. He's measuring something else entirely. His approach has problems it that an actual rise in the divorce rate will not always produce a rise in his statistic, and an actual decline in the divorce rate will not always produce a decline in his statistic.

By pegging the divorce rate to the total number of marriages - any changes in the divorce rate are masked by changes in the marriage rate.

The facts show, at least for Massachusetts which was held up to be the shining example proving your case, that you are now less likely to marry and more likely to get divorced if you do marry, than you were back in 1990.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The proposition is true. Marriage in MA in 2010 is much worse off than it was in 1990.

Obviously gay marriage isn't the cure for what is ailing marriage, especially since the marriage rate in MA continues to decline.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It gives us a snapshot of what marriage used to be like. I can go back further, but it will just make my point even more obvious. Marriage is on the decline - gay marriage is simply accelerating the decline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With even fewer marriages being performed - shouldn't we expect that fewer of them would end up in divorce?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ. No, it's not an 'arbitrary line.' It's directly related to error bars and sample sizes. You clearly do not understand statistics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it is. I know you refuse to see this, but that is because you don't understand statistics. If a poll is within the MOE - we cannot draw any conclusions from the results. A result is only significant, if and only if, it shows a lead beyond the MOE.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be an example of a statistically significant result. If he were +1 with an MOE of +/- 3, would you draw the conclusion that Obama was more or less likely to be ahead?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm treating the result as statistically insignificant, because it fails to show any change beyond our error bars. There is nothing to distinguish what we did find, and random chance. That is what you are not getting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ.

No result is usable data.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

O+4 with a MOE of +/- 3 is statistically significant. No wonder you are struggling. You don't even understand statistical significance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you continue to lie. I think I'm done here.

I said, very explicitly, that the results surprised me and that I no longer advance the position that gay marriage has a statistically insignificant result on divorce rates.

The difference between you and me, is that I have abandoned my contention in the face of data, while you have not changed your own position an inch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am. Care to continue to call me 'math impaired?'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that some same race marriages do worse than other same race marriages, indicates that the common factor is that race can and does influence your marriage. Why is this? Because black people are more likely to grow up in broken homes and are less likely to have a positive example of marriage to look up to.

I know you don't like this conclusion, which is why you persist in blasting me. Which is fine. But, it does get tiresome.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Will you concede that gay marriage has no effect positive or negative on divorce rates in America? Will you finally discard your thesis now that you've conclusively demonstrated it to be false?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ. Why should the state recognize marriage between black men and black women, since they are more likely to fail?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because you're insisting that the Catholic church ought to capitulate to your position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really simple. Placement is not the number one goal of adoption agencies. Agenda trumps placement, at least in MA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your rebuttal assumes that since I believe some people shouldn't marry, that I'm condoning children out of wedlock.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, good. I wasn't sure. Had you said that earlier, would have saved me some time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Door is open. Are you willing to finally abandon your contention that gay marriage lowers divorce rates?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because you keep bringing this crap up in a thread that has nothing to do with it. Why? I suppose it makes you feel better to fling crap over and over again.

You tested it. You found that the result was no result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your behaviour afterwords confirms, that yes, you will refuse to abandon your hypothesis even in the face of your own evidence to the contrary.

Anyways, door is open. Will you step through it? "Outlook not so good".

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Statistical significance is no more arbitrary than, say, newtonian mechanics. Probability is probability. Is there a chance that the results we obtained could have arisen through random chance? Yes. Is there a chance that results that are statistically significant could have arisen through random chance? Also yes, but extremely unlikely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's O+2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what you're struggling with. Again, back to our coin flip example. I flip six coins, 4 heads and 2 tails. What's the probability that the next flip will be tails?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you. Why then are you asserting I said otherwise? I conceded this point when you first asked about it here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That you were unwilling to concede that your results indicate no inverse correlation whats

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think we have a winner here.

I believe marriage is a sacrament. I've never said that the reason that gay marriage should not be permitted is because they are more likely to fail. I have always stated that I believe the state has a desire to perpetuate itself - something gay marriage does not do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You clearly have reading comprehension issues. I blew it off because it's already been addressed. Go reread what I said.

White/white marriages fare better than white/black and black/black. White/Black marriages fare better than black/black - ergo single race marriages are not automatically superior. Why? Already addressed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your first post in this thread. Now, can we move on please?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reread what you just asked me.

70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Are you asserting that black/black marriages are responsible for 70 percent of black children being born out of wedlock? Really, alcon, really?

You've lost the thread quite some time ago...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One, I support marriage between one man and one woman. I believe this to be a part of the common law, no different than say, habeaus corpus. I would not want to change this for the same reason that you probably don't want habeaus corpus changed.

There are alternatives to english common law. One of these alternatives is Sharia. Insofar as the US is governed on the principles of english common law, the US should retain the entirety of the common law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're asking all the wrong questions. Look, just stop, ok?

You're working out of a worthless framework right now that is not doing the job.

The questions you should be asking are:

"what do you believe the role of the government should be wrt marriage?"
"what do you believe is the purpose of marriage within society"
"what do you believe are the reasons why people should get married?"
"how do you believe people who are married should conduct yourself?"

See where I'm going? Just ditch the crappy argument and we can make progress!

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still deteriorating, which is not good.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except for the fact that a marriage is more likely to break up in 2010 than in 1990, even with the higher divorce rate. That's the problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Christ. It shows just the opposite. There were FEWER divorces per marriage in 1990 than in 2010.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would say the fad diet is a failure.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yawn, you're only arguing this in order to salvage your position. Rather than actually change your position in the face of contrary data, you're arguing over what "is" really means.

Is it statistically significant? No. Is statistical significancy arbitrary? No.  End of story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it O+2? Yes. Now, you're arguing from authority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In order to prove that you've got a coin that is not fair - you have to do a statistically significant number of trials and show that the deviation from true is statistically significant.

What you've done here, is take a statistically significant number of trials, and found a result that was statistically insignificant. Ergo - we can conclude that the coin is fair.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not unless I can empty the tank and count the contents. Just the 4 and 2 is insufficient information.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Earlier up in the thread, which is why I had to clarify it YET AGAIN. I'm tired of having to clarify my position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it is zero correlation.

I'm not going to answer any more posts from you until you concede this point.

[Wisconsin+17]

Also, didn't I already say:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want to talk to yourself go right ahead. If you want to actually listen, feel free to ask me any of these questions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. Never did. You've been persuing this non sequitor the entire thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. You're the one equating the two arguments. Adoption is all about outcomes - what is in the best interests of the child. Marriage is about the common law.