The Empathy of Mittens

[Brittain33]

Inks, he should have known because they were the lead plaintiffs in the court case that led to SSM a year earlier and who he'd been publicly fighting in his effort to get a ban on SSM enshrined in the state's constitution.

It's like if Eisenhower had asked Linda Brown why she couldn't just drive to school and save everyone her complaints.

[Insula Dei]

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.

That's irony, right?

Answering a question like that is simple enough: 'I can see how this must be difficult for you and for your children, but I don't think that we must allow the definition of an institution as important as marriage be defined by what we would like it to be. yadda yadda'

Seriously people, it's about being able to relate to people, even when they're clearly not going to vote for you.

[Brittain33]

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?

This questions gets to the point. It's because he had zero empathy for this mother of a young girl that he fought her and them got antagonized and irritated that she approached him and tried to get him to let her have parental rights like he and Ann take for granted. His obnoxious response is how people without empathy behave.

[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...

[afleitch]

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.

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.

[Insula Dei]

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

Congratulations, btw.

[opebo]

Probably the same thing I'd say.

Yes, that's precisely the point - nobody likes him either.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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?

Yes because he is, you know, a politician.

And if he is gets pissed off and becomes mean-spirited so easily then that's another argument against him to have the nuclear codes. 

[Politico]

Inks, he should have known because they were the lead plaintiffs in the court case that led to SSM a year earlier and who he'd been publicly fighting in his effort to get a ban on SSM enshrined in the state's constitution.

Sorry, but Romney and his campaign have bigger fish to fry. If the economy was in 2004 shape, sure he would know those details. The constant obsession with gay marriage in these scary times shows mainstream America how out of touch many Democrats have become.

This fictional report is exactly that, but my bet: this woman has a crappy life and is looking to blame somebody else for it.  Romney certainly has other, more important issues to talk about rather than mudslinging with an angry, unsatisfied lesbian.

[Brittain33]

Inks, he should have known because they were the lead plaintiffs in the court case that led to SSM a year earlier and who he'd been publicly fighting in his effort to get a ban on SSM enshrined in the state's constitution.

Sorry, but Romney and his campaign have bigger fish to fry. If the economy was in 2004 shape, sure he would know those details.

The event happened in 2004.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This fictional report is exactly that, but my bet: this woman has a crappy life and is looking to blame somebody else for it.  Romney certainly has other, more important issues to talk about rather than mudslinging with an angry, unsatisfied lesbian.

Let's play spot the canards!

[Alcon]

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.

...

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

...

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

You still are misconstruing how confidence intervals work.

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?

All else being equal, the evidence here is that the policy does more harm than good.  All else may not be equal, but if your argument is that we shouldn't treat a 51% chance as preferable to a 49% chance, I do disagree.

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

uh, considering that whites greatly outnumber blacks, that isn't necessarily true, even if it were relevant to my construction somehow (see below.)

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.

Yes, and incentivizing gay people to enter relationships and then adopt is a much better option available than leaving them in foster homes because stable gay couples might have marginally inferior outcomes to stable heterosexual relationships (although I'm not sure the research actually agrees with that, but putting that aside for the moment...)

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.

Yes, much as not getting married is a personally valid option for those in heterosexual unions (interracial or black/black) that aren't as high-outcome.  You do realize that this is not how you rebut a reductio ad absurdum?

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.

How does this rebut my point in any way, shape, or form?  Not all existing charities are Catholic.  Also, I doubt that your opposition to gay adoption by Catholic charities has anything to do with the state's action.  If it does, I don't think you mean "quid pro quo" (what for what?) as much as you mean "unethical passive-aggressive bull."

and again, how does this rebut my point?  it doesn't.  you're the worst.

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

Yes, you converted to Catholicism.  I wonder if you knew how statistical significance worked beforehand.  There are people who agree with me who have terrible arguments to defend their views too.

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...

I ran a hell of a lot of data analysis for you to not bother to even understand how statistical significance works.

IT'S A CONTINUUM.

A CONTINUUM.

C-O-N-T-I-N-U-U-M.

you're the worst.

and aren't you a Canadian anyway?

[Wiz in Wis]

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.

...

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

...

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

You still are misconstruing how confidence intervals work.

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?

All else being equal, the evidence here is that the policy does more harm than good.  All else may not be equal, but if your argument is that we shouldn't treat a 51% chance as preferable to a 49% chance, I do disagree.

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

uh, considering that whites greatly outnumber blacks, that isn't necessarily true, even if it were relevant to my construction somehow (see below.)

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.

Yes, and incentivizing gay people to enter relationships and then adopt is a much better option available than leaving them in foster homes because stable gay couples might have marginally inferior outcomes to stable heterosexual relationships (although I'm not sure the research actually agrees with that, but putting that aside for the moment...)

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.

Yes, much as not getting married is a personally valid option for those in heterosexual unions (interracial or black/black) that aren't as high-outcome.  You do realize that this is not how you rebut a reductio ad absurdum?

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.

How does this rebut my point in any way, shape, or form?  Not all existing charities are Catholic.  Also, I doubt that your opposition to gay adoption by Catholic charities has anything to do with the state's action.  If it does, I don't think you mean "quid pro quo" (what for what?) as much as you mean "unethical passive-aggressive bull."

and again, how does this rebut my point?  it doesn't.  you're the worst.

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

Yes, you converted to Catholicism.  I wonder if you knew how statistical significance worked beforehand.  There are people who agree with me who have terrible arguments to defend their views too.

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...

I ran a hell of a lot of data analysis for you to not bother to even understand how statistical significance works.

IT'S A CONTINUUM.

A CONTINUUM.

C-O-N-T-I-N-U-U-M.

you're the worst.

and aren't you a Canadian anyway?

As a statistician... I have to say Alcon, you made a noble effort, but sometimes people just don't understand math. Remember, 1/2 of all people have below average IQ.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

My guess is that this is what that couple heard, but not precisely what Romney said.

[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.

[Wiz in Wis]

Look what Smeagol finds! Statistically significant & everything:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

Banning Gay Marriage is correlated with Increasing Divorce Rates.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Look what Smeagol finds! Statistically significant & everything:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

Banning Gay Marriage is correlated with Increasing Divorce Rates.

Damn those facts and their well known liberal bias.

[Mehmentum]

Look what Smeagol finds! Statistically significant & everything:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html

Banning Gay Marriage is correlated with Increasing Divorce Rates.

That is some pretty damning evidence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As opposed to all of those other states where that's not the case?

[Brittain33]

Not that your proposition isn't absurd, but even granting it--all of the change in the ratio and then some came between 1990 and 2000, and the ratio improved in the decade where SSM was legalized.

[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.