equality blooms with spring, pt. II - Page 56 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-30-2009, 05:00 PM   #826
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:47 AM
you've entirely missed the boat on this discussion, it seems.

of course children do better with their fathers when their fathers are invested, loving, supportive parents. no one is going to debate that two parents are more effective than one, as the Obama speech pointed out.

but this has nothing at all to do with gender essentialism. that's entirely your own concoction.

again, nathan, let's hear those specific, indispensable qualities that ONLY men have a woman could never have and that children with two mommies are going to be deprived of and become part of the statistics that you've outlined above.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 05:00 PM   #827
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:47 AM
I have a degree in sociology but I still believe what I do about this issue. Maybe I should just give back my degree...
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 05:00 PM   #828
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
So what are we going to do about what clearly presents an enormous menace to our children: STRAIGHT MEN?


they're also the most likely people to sexually abuse children, especially girls.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 05:18 PM   #829
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Movement under way in California to ban divorce

By Judy Lin, Associated Press Writer | November 30, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. --Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

The effort is meant to be a satirical statement after California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage. If that's the case, then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.

"Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more," the 38-year-old married father of two said.

Marcotte said he has collected dozens of signatures, including one from his wife of seven years. The initiative's Facebook fans have swelled to more than 11,000. Volunteers that include gay activists and members of a local comedy troupe have signed on to help.

Marcotte is looking into whether he can gather signatures online, as proponents are doing for another proposed 2010 initiative to repeal the gay marriage ban. But the odds are stacked against a campaign funded primarily by the sale of $12 T-shirts featuring bride and groom stick figures chained at the wrists.

Marcotte needs 694,354 valid signatures by March 22, a high hurdle in a state where the typical petition drive costs millions of dollars. Even if his proposed constitutional amendment made next year's ballot, it's not clear how voters would react.

Nationwide, about half of all marriages end in divorce.

Not surprisingly, Marcotte's campaign to make divorce in California illegal has divided those involved in last year's campaign for and against Proposition 8.

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be "impractical," said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.

No other state bans divorce, and only a few countries, including the Philippines and Malta, do. The Roman Catholic Church also prohibits divorce but allows annulments. The California proposal would amend the state constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced while allowing married couples to seek an annulment.

Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

"That's where our intention begins and ends," he said.

Jeffrey Taylor, a spokesman for Restore Equality 2010, a coalition of same-sex marriage activists seeking to repeal Proposition 8, said the coalition supports Marcotte's message but has no plans to join forces with him.

"We find it quite hilarious," Taylor said of the initiative.

Marcotte, who runs the comedy site BadMouth.net in his spare time, said he has received support from across the political spectrum. In addition to encouragement from gay marriage advocates, he has been interviewed by American Family Association, a Mississippi-based organization that contributed to last year's Yes on 8 campaign.

He was mentioned by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" during his "World's Best Persons" segment for giving supporters of Proposition 8 their "comeuppance in California."

Marcotte, who is Catholic and voted against Proposition 8, views himself as an accidental activist. A registered Democrat, he led a "ban divorce" rally recently at the state Capitol in Sacramento to launch his effort and was pleasantly surprised at the turnout. About 50 people showed up, some holding signs that read, "You too can vote to take away civil rights from someone."

Marcotte stopped dozens of people during another signature drive in downtown Sacramento. Among them was Ryan Platt, 32, who said he signed the petition in support of his lesbian sister, even though he thinks it would be overturned if voters approved it.

"Even if by some miracle this did pass, it would never stand up to the federal government," Platt said. "And if it did, there's something really wrong with America."

Other petition signers said they were motivated by a sincere interest to preserve marriages. One was Ervin Hulton, a 47-year-old dishwasher who said he believes in making it harder for couples to separate.

"The way I feel, why go out and spend all these tons of money for marriage, the photography and all that? And along down the line, it's going to shatter," said Hulton, who is single.

The U.S. divorce rate is 47.9 percent, according to data provided by the National Center for Health Statistics reports. That figure, however, does not include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Minnesota because those six states no longer report their divorce rates to the center.

California stopped because of budget problems, said Ralph Montano, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health.

While most people would not support banning divorce, it does make sense for couples to be educated about the financial and emotional commitments of marriage, said Dan Couvrette, chief executive and publisher of Toronto-based Divorce Magazine. The publication has a circulation of 140,000, including a regional edition in Southern California.

"It's a worthwhile conversation to have," said Couvrette, who started the magazine in 1996 after going through his own divorce. "I don't think it's just a frivolous thought."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 05:47 PM   #830
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

I understand the dangers of too easily equating causation and correlation. I'm not necessarily saying that correlation proves causation either. However, one can assemble enough statistical evidence to draw certain conclusions. It's pretty clear from the statistics above, in addition to those quoted in Newsweek, in addition to those cited by President Obama, that the role of fathers is crucial. Those who underestimate that role, do so in the face of reality...
It's fine to pull quotes that serve your purpose out of studies, but do you know how to really assess them? What do they say about third variables? What statistical procedures did they use? Did they use any that would partial out any third variables? Not every study is done perfectly, there are ways to critique just about all of them, and unless the study did something to address the spurious variable problem, I wouldn't put much stock into it.

FYI, even researchers know their studies aren't perfect, or completely comprehensive, or generalizable to the entire population. In fact, if you look toward the end of any decent psychological study, you'll find a subheading where they address limitations of the study. Researchers know that there's danger in doing just what you're doing, pulling quotes to suit your purpose without the full context. That's why I really hate to read newspaper or magazine articles about studies, because a lot of it's taken out of context and interpreted by laypeople, you have to go to the source to get the full story, and be able to recognize exactly what it is that you are reading.

For example, just by reading the following that you posted, I see one glaring issue:

Quote:
In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).
The key thing that sets off alarms for me is in the title, I don't even need to read the whole study: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children. Just that one word tells me that there's a lot more going on for these children than just fatherlessness.

Anyway, as I've said, and as others have said, none if this even matters to the discussion at hand. I mentioned that unless you're planning on removing kids from single parent families, your stance is hypocritical. As Irvine pointed out, all you're doing is showing that there is a big problem with straight men in our society, one that homosexual families shouldn't suffer for.

So, trot out all the quotes you need to prove your point, but the fact is, they really don't. I doubt you'd ever admit to that though, and I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall at this point, so I'm done with this strand of the conversation.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 06:49 PM   #831
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Nathan, I do not think those stats mean what you think they mean. They are comparing the effects on kids raised in a one-parent household vs those raised in a two-parent household. What we're talking about are the differences between households that both have two parents, none of whom leave their families. The only difference is that one is a same sex couple.

So when Irvine is asking for those qualities that only men can provide, he's not asking for the challenges families with only a mom face, he's asking for those challenges that a family with two moms could not meet as well as a mom and a dad. None of your stats speak to that.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:06 PM   #832
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:47 AM
what's interesting here is that the line "children do best with a mother and a father" actually *is* a core reason that many use to justify their opposition to same-sex marriage. it's in the "talking points" that i posted earlier that NOM has on their website in order to help their supporters construct arguments.

so in many ways, all this has been quite useful. we've done a very good job in this thread of exposing that fact as a red herring -- sure, kids do better with two parents, which most often is a mother and a father, but that doesn't mean anything to the success of children with gay parents, nor does it mean that there aren't single parents doing a great job, nor does it also mean that one parent might be so destructive that his absence actually makes the family better.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:09 PM   #833
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Nathan, I do not think those stats mean what you think they mean. They are comparing the effects on kids raised in a one-parent household vs those raised in a two-parent household. What we're talking about are the differences between households that both have two parents, none of whom leave their families.


i wonder, though, that if we had an epidemic of "deadbeat moms" if we'd see the same social problems that we see with deadbeat dads.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:17 PM   #834
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Nathan, I do not think those stats mean what you think they mean.
YouTube - You keep using that word.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:30 PM   #835
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 08:47 AM
I knew you'd come through.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 07:56 PM   #836
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so in many ways, all this has been quite useful. we've done a very good job in this thread of exposing that fact as a red herring -- sure, kids do better with two parents, which most often is a mother and a father, but that doesn't mean anything to the success of children with gay parents, nor does it mean that there aren't single parents doing a great job, nor does it also mean that one parent might be so destructive that his absence actually makes the family better.
Nor does it really have anything to do with marriage equality.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 08:58 PM   #837
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
of course children do better with their fathers when their fathers are invested, loving, supportive parents. no one is going to debate that two parents are more effective than one, as the Obama speech pointed out.
Did you read the speech? Obama talked about the need for fathers, Irvine. Fathers.

Quote:
but this has nothing at all to do with gender essentialism. that's entirely your own concoction.
Biology is a concoction? *shrug*

Quote:
again, nathan, let's hear those specific, indispensable qualities that ONLY men have a woman could never have and that children with two mommies are going to be deprived of and become part of the statistics that you've outlined above.
As I said earlier, gender roles shift and change over time. What's not in dispute based on the statistics posted, from such controversial sources as the US Census Bureau and the Dept of Human Health and Services, is that kids do better with their fathers in the home.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 09:04 PM   #838
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
The key thing that sets off alarms for me is in the title, I don't even need to read the whole study: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children. Just that one word tells me that there's a lot more going on for these children than just fatherlessness.
You should have paid attention to the next quote:

"A family structure index - a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed - is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males."
"Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23 (1994)

When studies corroborate evidence across racial and socio-economic lines, the need for fathers then isn't merely isolated to African-American urban youth (as Irvine implied a few pages back when he said that Obama was simply addressing the African-American community).

Interestingly, the statistics for girls without a father are also interesting:

Girls without a father in their life are two and a half times as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Boys without a father in their life are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Both girls and boys without a father are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail, and nearly four times as likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services press release, "HHS Launches 'Be Their Dad' Parental Responsibility Campaign" (March 26, 1999)
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 09:05 PM   #839
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Nor does it really have anything to do with marriage equality.
Since marriage is the context in which the majority of children are still born, and since the statistical evidence shows that kids need fathers, I'd say it does...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 11-30-2009, 09:16 PM   #840
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
they're also the most likely people to sexually abuse children, especially girls.
Actually, it's interesting -- in 1983, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that 60% of child abusers were women with sole custody. I realize that child abuse and the specific case of sexual abuse are different, but still -- I wasn't aware of that. (Things may have changed since those days.)
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) FallingStar PLEBA Archive 147 07-28-2003 03:01 PM
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) CMM Interference Gatherings 80 04-14-2003 10:02 PM
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. Johnny Swallow Lemonade Stand Archive 8 03-07-2003 04:53 PM
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) sulawesigirl4 Lemonade Stand Archive 61 01-05-2003 03:29 PM
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto WildHonee PLEBA Archive 9 11-02-2001 07:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com