# Franken pwns Focus on the Family. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 20, 2011, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772 "2011-07-20T22:59:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/181 "2011-08-03T00:40:43Z")
But you could draw the same conclusion about people named Cuthbert or Aloysius or Nehemiah. Or, for that matter, about people named John or Peter or Michael. Take it to the extreme, and you’d conclude that marriage is good for anyone whose name you don’t know, but that once you learn that person’s name, _whatever it is_, you suddenly can’t conclude anything any more. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/182 "2011-08-03T00:57:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If we start with the assumption (the quite reasonable assumption, I might add) that being named Egbert has no effect on outcome, the yes, the study supports it. > > The problem is that if we’re testing that hypothesis, we’re not allowed to start with that assumption. That’s not the hypothesis being tested. What’s being tested is married parents vs. unmarried parents. The genital configurations of those pairings (like their names) are irrelevant variables which are not being tested. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/183 "2011-08-03T01:19:38Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But you could draw the same conclusion about people named Cuthbert or Aloysius or Nehemiah. Or, for that matter, about people named John or Peter or Michael. Take it to the extreme, and you’d conclude that marriage is good for anyone whose name you don’t know, but that once you learn that person’s name, _whatever it is_, you suddenly can’t conclude anything any more. No. _sigh_ Do you know what’s meant by the terms “dependent variable” and “independent variable?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/184 "2011-08-03T01:20:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s not the hypothesis being tested. What’s being tested is married parents vs. unmarried parents. The genital configurations of those pairings (like their names) are irrelevant variables which are not being tested. They are irrelevant until you start claiming that the study shows they are irrelevant. Once you make that claim, you need to show that the study controlled them (or for them). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/185 "2011-08-03T01:25:37Z")
No. They are irrelevant regardless (unless you prove otherwise, which you can’t). Irrelevance is the null assumption here. The burden is on you. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/186 "2011-08-03T01:41:56Z")
The study tested the following hypothesis: Do married parents produce better outcomes than other family arrangements? And it answered it in the affirmative. From that study one can conclude that as a general rule that married parents produce better outcomes for children than do unmarried parents. Some may be exceptions from that general rule, but without evidence that a specific couple is that exception the study suggests that the general rule applies as the default. You were asked > [@](#): > > if I asked “Hey, I have some friends who are starting a family. Would it be better for their kids if they officially married, or if they didn’t?”, you could reasonably point to this study and say “It’d probably be better if they officially married”, right? > > If I then said “Oh, and by the way, these folks happen to be Asian”, would you turn around and say “Oh, in that case, I have no idea if it’d be better if they married, since the study didn’t do a breakdown by race”? Would you also give that same response if I had said they were African, or Native American, or European? I submit that such a response would not be justified: If you respond that marriage would be advantageous, when you don’t know their race, and given that the study didn’t address race, you should also continue to say that marriage would be advantageous, even after you learn their race. > > And the same goes for sexual orientation. If you say that my friends ought to marry, and I then tell you that they’re gay, should you change your conclusion to not knowing whether they should marry? And responded > [@](#): > > Actualy, what you should say is something close to ‘I have no idea.’ And sorry but that is as absurd as saying that despite the fact that I know that in general Lipitor is a wonderful cholestrol lowering agent, I must state that I have no idea if Lipitor will lower the cholesterol level of a Spanish man with a pet poodle because Spanish men with pet poodles have not been specifically studied… Sure it is possible that there is some correlate of being Spanish and owning a poodle that blocks the effect of Lipitor, some genetic condition that both leads for a poodle preference and that becomes manifest only when people nap mid-day, but without evidence of such I _can_ suggest Lipitor for this particular man as likely to be effective. I _can_ state that it is, based on that study, _likely_ that married Asians also have better child outcomes on average than do unmarried Asians. Now as for the hypothesis that marriage of gays is a specific exception to the rule suggested by the study, that married couples lead to better child outcomes - the onus is on those who would propose that to support the contention. Here is where we differ- you believe the hypothesis being tested is “Gay and straight marriage produce similar outcomes.” I believe that the hypothesis is that marriage between parents is good for kids, which this study strongly supports (at least as a correlation). The burden of proof in my mind would be to provide evidence that gays are the exception to that general rule. There is no study that does that and certainly not this one. You are completely correct that the study does not inform on the hypothesis you believe is being tested. Again, by your standard we could never recommend any dietary, activity, or medication intervention unless the exact subgroup under consideration has been studied in statistically significant sample sizes. That is absurd. Unless we learn from independent evidence that Lipitor is specifically ineffective for a hypercholesterolemic male Spanish poodle owner we can assume it is as effective for him as for the general population studied. If someone says that I should not prescribe it for that specific person despite general population studies that suggest it works well the burden of proof is not on me to prove that Spanish poodle owners respond the same, but on the other person to prove they do not. Lipitor should be advised for him and marriage for gay parents by the same exact logic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/187 "2011-08-03T01:43:37Z")
OK, I’m done for the moment. Anyone else who believes in fighting ignorance is welcome to step up. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/188 "2011-08-03T01:51:15Z")
Sometimes you really are just being sophist, **Bricker**. This is one of those times. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/189 "2011-08-03T01:55:45Z")
What should I tell the hypercholesterolemic Spanish poodle owner about Lipitor and why? In what ways is it, in your mind, a different circumstance than the question of whether marriage should be advised for gay parents? (Honestly, just calling those who disagree with you “ignorant” is poor style.) ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/190 "2011-08-03T02:09:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If we start with the assumption (the quite reasonable assumption, I might add) that being named Egbert has no effect on outcome, the yes, the study supports it. > > The problem is that if we’re testing that hypothesis, we’re not allowed to start with that assumption. Who is testing that hypothesis? Minnery tried to use this study to argue that SSM is bad for kids. You agree that the study did NOT show that, right? So the position we find ourselves in is that we have the only data we have seems to suggest that married partners are better for kids, and the data is not sliced in such a way that it distinguishes whether the partners are same-sex or opposite sex (or by what their first names are). It’s not a slam dunk, but I haven’t heard any reasons to suspect that it wouldn’t apply to same-sex partners. In short, there’s not a hypothesis that we’re testing. Someone tried to use some existing data to support his point, when the existing data reasonably seems to work against it. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/191 "2011-08-05T12:33:20Z")
I’ll bump this thread with this bit of info: [Psychological association calls for legalization of same-sex marriage](http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/04/psychologists.gay.marriage/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn) > [@](#): > > The resolution “clarifies the Association’s support for same-sex marriage” in light of new research, the group said. A similar resolution in 2004 opposed discrimination against same-sex relationships, but refrained from a more formal policy recommendation. > > Now that six U.S. states permit same-sex marriage, researchers have been able to conduct studies with those couples. > > The research, Anderson said, indicates that marriage “does confer the same sense of security, support, and validation” to same-sex couples as to heterosexual ones. > > “Anything other than marriage is, in essence, a stigmatization of same-sex couples. Stigma does have negative impacts on people,” Anderson said. > > “That’s the analysis that we’ve come to and why we’ve decided to support full marriage equality – because domestic partnership or civil union will still convey the message that same-sex couples are not as good.” ---
**Author:** ![BDBoop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@BDBoop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BDBoop)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/192 "2011-08-05T14:53:32Z")
Thanks for the share. It’s a start. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/193 "2011-08-05T15:39:29Z")
Although I often disagree with Bricker in this case he is right on the money. Here is the test by fire. Suppose that FoF was right. Suppose that the instant they are married gays become child eating satanists. In such a universe how would the results of this study look. The answer is it would look exactly the same way as it did in the current universe. It would find that married couples are better for children then single parents, because it didn’t happen to include any of the child eating satanists. Given that the results are equally likely in both the current universe and the alternate child devouring universe, this study makes no claim as to which universe is reality. In the case of a drug trial done it New York and extending its results to Mississippi, that may be a good thing to do. But if the entire point you are trying to make is that there is no difference between Mississippi and New York. You are going to need a new study. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/194 "2011-08-05T15:41:14Z")
That’s incorrect. The study did not exclude same-sex couples. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/195 "2011-08-05T16:13:24Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Here is the test by fire. Suppose that FoF was right. Suppose that the instant they are married gays become child eating satanists. In such a universe how would the results of this study look. The answer is it would look exactly the same way as it did in the current universe. It would find that married couples are better for children then single parents, because it didn’t happen to include any of the child eating satanists. And applying this rationale to our hypothetical, if parents named Egbert suddenly, upon marriage, became child-eating satanists, the study would not have found that either. Now someone comes to you proposing to ban marriage to parents named Egbert because of concern for kids. I tell him that the data we have tells us that in general, kids are better off with married parents, and unless he comes up with some reason to question whether this study wouldn’t apply to parents named Egbert, the data we have seems to argue against his position. He then takes your gambit and tells me that the study didn’t include any Egberts, so the study has no bearing on the issue. He’d be wrong. Unless he presents any kind of a reason why the data we have would not apply to Egberts, the only reasonable approach is to accept that it does. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/196 "2011-08-05T17:10:28Z")
Nobody ever said that science can’t get the wrong answer sometimes. But it’s usually right, and if we throw out science for the sake of those occasional wrong answers, there’s not much of anything left to replace it with. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/197 "2011-08-05T20:06:27Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > And applying this rationale to our hypothetical, if parents named Egbert suddenly, upon marriage, became child-eating satanists, the study would not have found that either. > > Now someone comes to you proposing to ban marriage to parents named Egbert because of concern for kids. I tell him that the data we have tells us that in general, kids are better off with married parents, and unless he comes up with some reason to question whether this study wouldn’t apply to parents named Egbert, the data we have seems to argue against his position. > > He then takes your gambit and tells me that the study didn’t include any Egberts, so the study has no bearing on the issue. > > He’d be wrong. Unless he presents any kind of a reason why the data we have would not apply to Egberts, the only reasonable approach is to accept that it does. But the person in the anti-Egbert league says that they believe that Egberts are fundamentally different. At which point without more data you get into a “No they aren’t”, “Yes, they are” type argument, convincing no one. What is needed are other studies to show that Egberts are like everyone else and the anti-Egberts are full of it. As far as coming up with reasons why the data wouldn’t apply to homosexuals, I’m sure that the Fof can come up with lots. They are all wrong, but we don’t know that a-priori without more data. Taking this further, if this study says marriage is good, doesn’t that extend to people who are already married, so that children will clearly do better in polygamous households, than ones with only one marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/198 "2011-08-05T20:12:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That’s incorrect. The study did not exclude same-sex couples. But it likely didn’t include a sample large enough to reach any conclusions about it. One gay child eating satanist among a couple of hundred normal married couples isn’t going to change the results. If it did include a large number of gay couples than these would need to be analyzed separately to show that they as a group also performed better than the single parents. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2011, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/199 "2011-08-05T20:20:14Z")
No they wouldn’t, no more than couples with names starting with ‘M’ would. it’s an irrelevant variable. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772/200 "2011-08-06T00:02:56Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No they wouldn’t, no more than couples with names starting with ‘M’ would. it’s an irrelevant variable. But Focus on Family’s claim is that it _is_ a relevant variable. They’re wrong, of course, but you can’t prove that they’re wrong about it being a relevant variable by referring to a study that starts with the assumption that it’s an irrelevant variable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/franken-pwns-focus-on-the-family/589772.md?page=11)