That’s nice that they want to make that claim. But the study they offered up has nothing to do with the claim. The study they offered up merely documents that as a general rule kids raised within families that benefit from the security of having the parents married have better outcomes than those that do not. And basing a decision* on that and that alone* one would reasonably conclude that marriage between gay parents is also likely to have improved child outcomes compared to unmarried gay parent families. Such a position is strengthened by other studies that show that same sex parenting outcomes are subject to the same effects of other factors as are heterosexual parenting outcomes, but does not require such.
Again, someone can claim that Lipitor will have bad outcomes for Spanish poodle owners, but if they offer up a study that shows that across broad populations studied Lipitor has good outcomes as a reason to believe that it won’t work for Spanish poodle owners, I’d say that the study actually supports the use of Lipitor for all with high cholesterol, including Spanish poodle owners, even though Spanish poodle owners were not a statistically significant sample in the study. If all I had was someone claiming that Spanish poodle owners should not get Lipitor, that study, and a hypercholesterolemic Spanish poodle owner as a patient, I’d suggest Lipitor as a reasonable choice for the Spanish poodle owner, and thank the person who gave me the study for giving me a reasonable evidence-based reason for doing so.
Right. The study doesn’t offer evidence one way or the other on the specific claim that gay couples are poorer parents than straight parents.
Right again. The study shows that, all else being equal, a child raised by married parents is better off than a child raised by unmarried or single parents. But Focus on Family’s claim is that gay parents are *not *equal to straight parents. This study doesn’t support that claim, but it also doesn’t refute it.
The fact that FoF tried to claim that it supported them is a big hit to their credibility, of course, and Franken nailed them on that fair and square.
I agree, too. But if someone made the specific claim that Spanish poodles have a bad reaction to Lipitor, you couldn’t point to that study as proof that they’re wrong, because the study isn’t about Spanish poodles, just as the study misrepresented by FoF isn’t about gay marriage. Speaking as someone who already accepts the idea that homosexuality doesn’t have any effect on parenting outcomes, I’m happy to accept the study as evidence that gay marriage is good for kids. But for someone who doesn’t accept that premise, this study does not refute them in any way.
If FoF wants to argue that gay married parents are inferior to straight married parents, it’s up to them to bring data. The limited data we have suggests that kids are better off with married parents, so allowing couples to marry is generally a good idea.
There may specific groups that would be exceptions to the study’s general conclusions, but if someone claims that a certain group is an exception, it’s up to them show it. Absent that, the only reasonable position is to reject their claim, and tentatively accept that whatever group we’re talking about has the same outcome as the study showed.
Saying otherwise is shifting the burden of proof. Maybe it’s a lawyer thing, but in science it’s viewed as a logical fallacy.
I think this is exactly the point. In scientific terms, the claim that same-sex couples are an exception to the general findings does not shift the burden to the side that objects to this claim. Burden-shifting in law works much differently.
I think Bricker’s point is that because FoF isn’t advocating a change in the law, the burden of proof isn’t on them. He conceded that the study doesn’t show what they say it does, but since the law is that gay couples can’t adopt*, the default assumption for the purposes of a congressional hearing on a change in the law is that same-sex couples are an exception to the general finding.
So FoF can’t use the study as evidence in support of their position, but neither can proponents of extension of adoption rights.
*They can’t, right? It’s my understanding that a person, gay or otherwise, can adopt as an individual, but that a gay couple cannot adopt as a couple.
I know I’m late to this part of the thread, but your arguments here seem deliberately obtuse, Bricker.
Look at it this way: prime numbers are numbers that can only be divided by themselves and one, right?
So we have a body of numbers that are called “prime”, right?
Would you argue that no even numbers can be prime because we didn’t specifically say we were going to look at both even and odd numbers when checking to see if numbers fit the parameters to be prime numbers?
Would you argue that we can’t know if even numbers can be prime, because we didn’t say we were going to specifically check them as opposed to checking numbers without regard to whether they were even or odd?
I admit that I didn’t read this thread as closely as I could have… but is anyone actually arguing against any of this? I’m pretty sure that Bricker wasn’t, but maybe I missed something.
I have seen several committee questionings on CSPAN. When Franken’s chance to question comes, he shows he has done his homework. He is well versed in the subject and asks very good questions. He is no Jeff Sessions.