In his latest column (which should be on the boards next week sometime so I’ll link to it then if the topic flies) Cecil again goes after the number of lesbian mothers in the country. What’s the deal?!? I’m not really sure why it’s so important to him to flog this not once but twice (the first time being in his column on same-sex marriage). The reason he gives in the column, “an implausably large number that arose from a comedy of errors and escaped scrutiny because it was useful in an argument has now been used to support a ruling by Vermont’s highest court,” seems a little forced, since the Court did not rely on the estimate or even on the existence of children being raised by same-sex parents in making its ruling.
Okay, Otto, I haven’t read the recent article, but I read the column you linked and I confess I can’t figure out what you mean. Adams went after the number of lesbian mothers? What do you mean by “went after”?
The only sentences I see in Cecil’s column as linked to above are:
Are you disagreeing with his statement “a relatively minor social phenomenon”?
Oh no, here we go again. :o
Gays/Lesbians and their Knee-Jerk Guilty Liberal friends with thin skins are going to take offence at Cecil’s last column.
Seeking offence where none exists.
“Straight Dope is Anti-Gay!”
“Cecil Adams is Homophobic!” will be the headlines. Jeez, Gays/Lesbians can be as worked up and thin-skinned as the rest of the Human race.I know someone will read “homophobic” into the last statement.
Just as bad as the school teacher disciplined for using “nappy” hair from a children’s bool in her class.
Get real, people.
Claw
As a gay man, I was at first curious as to why Cecil was so concerned about lesbian parenting. I expected him to pull a Dr. Laura at any moment. Then I realized, this is Cecil we’re talking about here. I could ask why Cecil is so concerned about Jimmy Carter and a killer rabbit. Cecil flies around the world righting wrongs and exposing false facts. It just makes the world a more orderly place. Frankly, I’m addicted to Straight Dope. (I just don’t see why it has to be straight…hehehe)
Hey, we’re straight (most of us) but not narrow around here. You are right that Cecil will point out myths and the misuse of statistics no matter which political views they support or dispute.
Exaggerating “facts” is unnecessary and can end up sabotaging a cause and destroying credibility. I am an HIV epidemiologist, and there are plenty of alarming facts and statistics that can be used to raise public consciousness to support increased attention and funds for AIDS prevention and services. HIV is still mosting impacting the gay male community in my state (some other states have different epidemiological profiles or trends) But I continue to see individuals and organizations here claiming that AIDS is “exploding” in women and heterosexual teenagers. Would it be more of a tragedy if this were so? The fact is that in my state, it isn’t true. But if there are 150 males and 2 females reported with HIV in one month, then 160 males and 4 females reported the next month, one could say that “female HIV cases have doubled and the rate of growth is much higher among females than males.” Does this give people an accurate picture of what’s happening with the epidemic in our state? No. And the truth is bad enough.
Otto, shame on you. Reasoned debate doesn’t get forwarded by silly assertions that aren’t even true.
In the article about same sex marriages, Cecil cited the statistic about the number of households with two members of the same sex raising children in the context of a discussion about same sex marriage laws as part of an answer to a question posed. In the current article, Cecil objects to an obviously inflated statistic as a follow on to the article last week about the often cited statistic about increased wife-battering resulting from football games which, as it turns out, has little evidence to support it. No doubt, the statistic about lesbian moms raising kids was brought to his attention when answering the same sex marriage question, but you will note that he did NOT bring up that statistic at that time.
Therefor, despite the assertion of Otto that Cecil is ‘going after’ the statistic again, these are two seperate, if related, discussions.
Reasoned discussion, Otto, is rarely advanced by creating an issue out of nothing. You can do better (and have in the past 
).
The newer article being referred to in the OP is: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000421.html
It’s great to see the Debunking of MediaMyths…typical special-interest’s distortion’s…that’s a popular one…minority groups pumping up their number’s to manipulate public belief.
The Homosexual community has used this technique very well…and will continue to…glad to see the researched estimates of 3 to 6 % in a distributed forum.
Something that makes statistical discussions like this difficult is the question “What is a lesbian?” Do you mean someone whose sex life is exclusively same-sex? 70% same-sex? 50-50? Or someone who had a few affairs in the college dorm? Without a handle on the number of “lesbians”, it’s impossible to begin to guesstimate the number of lesbian mothers.
What bothers me is that arguments of this sort are insulting to our intelligence. So the percentage of homosexuals is 3% (as seems likely) rather than 10%. Why should that affect my opinions about homosexuals? If something is morally acceptable, it doesn’t matter how few people are in that category. If something is not morally acceptable, it doesn’t matter how many people are in that category. People who make these arguments think that we’re such sheep that we base our beliefs on how many people agree with us.
If I have any unconscious prejudices in this respect, it’s actually toward defending a group that I think is smaller, not one that I think is larger. But in any case, I want to know the true numbers.
I shudder to think that some people might have the attitude that if there were “only” 3%, 6%, even 10% of the population that were black slaves, perhaps we’d still have ‘em pickin’ cotton today.
Esprix
Evidently, I rock.
Ask the Gay Guy!
Re public official’s gouging of Cecil for public records…
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (at least Michigan’s version) says that document preparation fees related to FOIA requests must be reasonable and related to actual costs-- for example, the local county clerk can’t charge $100 for a five cent copy on the office copier. This is to make public records accessible to all comers at non-arbitrary, non-gouging fees. How is it that the Wayne County Court Clerk can get away with charging $198 for a court document? Are public COURT records in general not subject to the FOIA? Are some court records sealed (e.g, non-disclosure clauses of settled civil suits)? In Michigan? Other states?
Actually, files in divorce cases can be pretty voluminous. Even assuming that the fee was only for the plaintiff’s brief ($198 may have been the charge for the entire case file), it’s possible for “briefs” can become quite lengthy if there are significant exhibits attached – especially if they’re court transcripts.
I’m with Jill on this. Legislation and legal cases should stand on their own merits, but you have to question the credibility of those who either exaggerate or minimize data in order to bolster their argument.
Having said that, I had heard figures close to Cecil’s years ago in a psychology class, but have always heard the 10% number bandied about by the media. From whence comes this 3-6% figure?
[QUOTE]
dqa:
[…] you have to question the credibility of those who either exaggerate or minimize data in order to bolster their argument.
[QUOTE]
True enough, but that’s politics. My guess is that the other side in that court case just may have departed from reasonable interpretations of data themselves. Lobbyists for Lesbians are very likely to be just like other actors (sic) in the legal and political spheres.
picmr
To Wendall,All
:rolleyes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What bothers me is that arguments of this sort are insulting to our intelligence. So the percentage of homosexuals is 3% (as seems likely) rather than 10%. Why should that affect my opinions about homosexuals?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Indeed, why should it, since there was nothing derogatory about Lesbian Mothers in that article in the first place?
Sounds again like some people are trying to find evidence of “oppression” where none exist.
I think that all “special interest” groups(from Gay/Lesbian to Falwell’s Army) “cooks” the books to further their arguments and to gain sympathy and support.
Claw
So far, you’re the only one posting knee-jerk rants.
Peace.
clawdagon,
I didn’t say that there was anything derogatory in Cecil’s article. What I was saying was that
-
There are those who claim that the percentage of homosexuals is about 10%.
-
There are those who claim that the percentage of homosexuals is about 3%.
-
Each of these groups has some people in them who defend these figures not because they think that the evidence for these figures is better, but because they hope we will be less hostile to homosexuality if we think the figure is 10% and more hostile toward homosexuality if we think the figure is 3%.
-
The people who defend the 10% or 3% figures not because of the evidence but because they want to make us become more favorable or less favorable to homosexuality are insulting our intelligence.
>>>Wendell Wagner wrote: “What bothers me is that arguments of this sort are insulting to our intelligence. So the percentage of
homosexuals is 3% (as seems likely) rather than 10%. Why should that affect my opinions about homosexuals? If something is morally acceptable, it doesn’t matter how few people are in that category. If something is not morally acceptable, it doesn’t matter how many people are in that category. People who make these arguments think that we’re such sheep that we base our beliefs on how many people agree with us.”<<<
This is true–they do think they’re dealing with sheep. Both the Left and Right are guilty of this…and they’re guilty of it because a lot of people ARE sheep who will be swayed by numbers.
I think the inflating/deflating of the numbers is aimed more of the politcians, though. More gays = fewer politicians willing to cross them; fewer gays = more politicians willing to promote bigotry as legislation. Most politicians are inherently amoral–their “beliefs” are whatever will keep them in office. In that sense, the numbers do matter–the biggest numbers win politically.
>>>Esprix wrote: “I shudder to think that some people might have the attitude that if there were “only” 3%, 6%, even 10%
of the population that were black slaves, perhaps we’d still have ‘em pickin’ cotton today.”<<<
I don’t know about slavery, but I’d be willing to bet that if the black population of the US was only 3% there would still be “Jim Crow” laws in place.
Cynical, ain’t I?