Anti-Gay Rhetoric 101: Child Abuse and Family Structure

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is now pointing to a recent government study in an attempt to provide proof that children living in non-traditional households are more likely to be abused than those who live in the nuclear family with both biological parents.  A 10 minute perusal of the document only serves to demonstrate that once again NOM missed the point, and, worse yet, grossly over exaggerated their case.  In their effort to discredit gay parents and tear down these families, this is an excellent example of this countries need for better education in basic math.  Let's examine a couple points.

(1) This study is of primarily heterosexual relationships.  Doesn't it seem somewhat intellectually dishonest not to recognize that gay and lesbian parents are purposefully denied access to a supposedly stabilizing institution (Marriage) and then punished them because they fall into the less stable category?  Of course they do!  If gay people could get married there would be no point to be made here because some would fall into each category, so really, this has nothing to do with homosexuality and shouldn't be used as a referendum on anything other than family structure.  IF ANYTHING, this is proof that gay people should be allowed to marry so their children would have a more stable household (since any kind of married parents are better than single with partner apparently).

(2) The problem is Single parents who live with their partner (what might be considered the only gay relationship category on here), but the problem is that there is another problem to be noted here.  The number of incidents of abuse in these relationships is about 33 per 1,000.  BUT here is a wrinkle, most of those incidents are perpetrated by the BIOLOGICAL parent, and not the partner.  In fact, in EVERY type of relationship 87% of the time it is the biological parent who is the perpetrator of abuse.  So, I guess that means the whole biological aspect of this argument doesn't hold much water.  So that really only leaves the married part.  Further support for gay people getting married!

(3) Now, lets talk about some statistics.  Children living with single parents and their partners are about 8 times more likely to be abused (33.0 incidents as opposed to 4.0 per 1,000).  However, those of you with half a brain already picked up on the HUGE omission in this argument.  33/1000 = 3.3%.  Translation.  Only 3 in every 100 children in these relationships are abused.  In strict statistical terms, this means there is probably a HUGE probability that this correlation isn't very strong and that there might be other factors.

For example, The same study finds that children with unemployed parents are about 2 times more likely to abuse their children, and three times more likely if they are not even in the labor force.  Why isn't this a referendum on unemployed parents?  Children in low SES families are 5 times more likely to be abused.  Why isn't this sparking a war on poor parents?  Children in families with 4+ children are twice as likely to be mistreated than those in families with 2 children.  Why aren't we talking about limited the number of births?  This is just three examples that I could find in 5 minutes.

(4) Finally, if you look at basic statistical scores (Appendixes), it looks pretty clear that half the stuff they are reporting isn't statistically significant by even the more relaxed research standards.  This begs the question, why is this being reported at all when it might not even be significant?  and why aren't people up in arms about this stuff?  (because they don't understand any of what I just said most likely)

Common Sense

Neo-Con Agenda: The "Ship" of State and Anti-Christianity

Oh boy, here's a fun article written by Charles LiMandri (pictured left) from National Organization for Marriage.  Before reading please take a moment to enjoy the flowery, over-the-top title.

The Ship of State is Being Steered Toward a Maelstrom of Anti-Christianity

How do these guys get their Law Degrees?  Please take a moment to reflect on how he quotes a number of different people, but then doesn't really talk about why what they say is bad.  I would assume he doesn't because he doesn't think he has to.  Based on the simple-minded reliosity of his likely readers I'm guessing they don't need an explanation.  For the rest of us, he is basically saying we should continue heterosexual indocrination, because he claims (but provides no justification) that it works...

I think it is somewhat amusing that the author quotes a person who debunks the "heterosexual indocrination" argument, and then goes on to endorse it as though he did not realize the person he quoted had debunked it.

Lets move beyond the whining about Obama actually doing something about discrimination in this country and get to the whole "extremist" argument he promotes.  Is Obama extremist?  Is he out of touch with the average person?  THIS is a legitimate question and one which is worth exploring.

Here are some statistics:
Should homosexuality be accepted by society?
United States: Yes: 49%, No: 41% (Pew Global Attitudes Project)

Here's a couple things you can take away from this:
1) Obama is not only NOT extremist, he is actually in the majority
2) Charles LiMandri's view seems to be in the minority.  If he would like to live in a place where Obama would be extremist he should move to Pelestinian Territories (Yes 9%, No 58%), Kuwait (Yes 6%, No 85%), Jordan (Yes 6%, No 89%), Egypt (1%, 95%), of an African nation.

Here is another study by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Of the general population (presumably heterosexual):
88% would accept a gay or lesbian family member or friend
88% believe that society should not restrict sexual activity between consenting adults
78% would be comfortable working with someone who is gay
76% support employment non-discrimination policies
74% support housing non-discrimination policies
73% support the inclusion of gays and lesbians in Hate Crime Legislation!
73% believe same sex partners should have inheritance rights
71% would send their children to a high school with a gay or lesbian teacher
70% believe same sex partners should have employer provided health insurance
68% believe same sex partners should have social security benefits
68% of youth believe that sexual orientation should be included in sex ed (61% of seniors)
68% of youth support same-sex unions (Yes 47%, No 46% in the general population)
66% believe that homosexual behavior is normal
61% would send their children to an elementary school with a gay or lesbian teacher
60% of youth support same sex marriage (39% in the general population)
60% would see a gay or lesbian doctor
58% would vote for a gay or lesbian political candidate
56% believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military
56% believe that gay couples can be good parents
55% of youth support adoption by gay and lesbian parents (46% in the general population)
47% support legal unions (42% oppose)

here is an interesting statistic I want to point out.  66% of people believe that homosexuality is natural, but 51% believe it is immoral.  Which means there are people out there who truly believe a natural act is immoral... isn't the whole point of that natural law mentality that all those things that are natural are moral.  or from the religious view, if god made something natural, than he wouldn't have made it immoral?  it astounds me how rediculous people are sometimes.

so, based on all this information who is really out of touch and extremist?  I think you know my answer to that question.

Common Sense