The Empathy of Mittens

[minionofmidas]

Is this legit? Kinda seems... I don't know, too stereotypical. Like an Onion Article.

Yeah, that's what I think whenever I hear of the existence of Mitt Romney.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Probably the same thing I'd say.

I hope your proud of yourself.

God Bless this country

People like you are why America is viewed as something of a "joke country" abroad. Anyways, enjoy that (outdated) map while you can because it`s changing fast.

Please elaborate.

Since that map was made gay marriages are recognized in Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Iowa.

[Psychic Octopus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey NiK, have you stopped beating your wife?

Not married. Now if you have a legitimate response, feel free to post it.

[Mehmentum]

More up to date map of gay marriage laws from wikipedia.


Dark Red: Gay Marriage and civil unions banned constitutionally
Red: Gay Marriage banned consitutionally
Light Red: Gay Marriage banned by state law
Light Grey: No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions
Dark Grey: Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized1
Light Blue: Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights
Blue: Same Sex unions legal
Dark Blue: Same Sex Marraige legal

[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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

What a ridiculous hack post.

Take a moment to look at your own posting history before ridiculing yourself again.

[Insula Dei]

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.

Uhm, no, it's not a leading question. It's a difficult question to answer for Romney without looking like the sociopath he is, but it doesn't presuppose a positive or negative answer to a prior question.

[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.

[Psychic Octopus]

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.

That's what I was implying in my first post. The question was asked with the purpose of being unanswerable by Romney. Romney's response is natural, since he doesn't have any response that could satisfy their question. But at the same time, the question posed is legitimate if aggressive, since opponents of Gay Marriage don't really care about how gay couples would justify not being married to their kids.

[Insula Dei]

@BenKenobi

So, what exactly does it presuppose according to you? Render the hidden meaning explicit.

[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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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.

You are an evil man trying to keep the children of gay couples from being truly happy.

Why, exactly, do children need a mother and a father? Is there any evidence, backed up by science and logic, that proves that gay people are worse parents?

[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.

[Alcon]

Ben -- I'd engage you on that claim, but the last time, you send me off exhaustively running regression analyses about whether gay marriage affected the divorce rate.  When they came back showing an inverse correlation between legalizing gay marriage and the relative change in the divorce rate between states, you dismissed it because it wasn't statistically significant.  In other words, you found weak evidence against your hypothesis, as opposed to any evidence for your hypothesis, but you affirmed your hypothesis anyway.

Children in interracial marriages also, all else being equal, have worse outcomes than comparable white couples.  Should the state legally restrict interracial marriage?  Isn't it in the interest of the state to encourage stable gay relationships, since gays adopt, unadopted foster children perform horribly on all metrics, and the evidence says stable gay relationships provide good outcomes in children?  There are so many holes in this logic.  I can't imagine how anyone could accept it...unless, of course, they were the sort of person who believes something until the opposite is proven to statistical significance, but demands no empirical evidence for his own beliefs.  Then I could totally see that!

This argument is just so intellectually bankrupt and laden with rationalization, it's almost painful.

[Alcon]

also, this:

"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.'

...is an incredibly mean-spirited, reductionist version of love.  I hope that's not how you see your relationships, with just the "heterosexual" variable flipped.  Terrible, man

[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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

On interracial marriage: It doesn't matter if all-black marriage is worse than interracial marriage. You said that the state should only spend its money on the best possible option. Does that mean you think black people shouldn't raise children?

Also, as Alcon pointed out, if not having a father doesn't detriment the children, why are they needed?

[Alcon]

"Ben -- I'd engage you on that claim, but the last time, you send me off exhaustively running regression analyses about whether gay marriage affected the divorce rate.  When they came back showing an inverse correlation between legalizing gay marriage and the relative change in the divorce rate between states, you dismissed it because it wasn't statistically significant."

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 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.

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.

So much awful here:

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've consistently been really, really specific in my criticisms, to the point where I ran a regression analysis and debated statistical analysis with you.  This is totally bizarre if you're trying to zing me here.

[Alcon]

.

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.

All else being equal, your preference for a theoretical female partner -- the person you will love for your entire life -- can be reduced down to "sexual desire" and that's it?  That's what you've loved about the women you love, just sexual desire?

I really hope you just phrased it that way for rhetorical reasons.

[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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, he's confronted by an antagonistic woman asking a loaded question that probably pissed him off, and you expect Romney to answer in a polite way given the question?

And how was he supposed to know that these people had families?  All he would've known is they're 2 gay people who presumably have partners and want to be able to marry someone of the same sex.