"Activist Judges"

Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien ruled this morning that same-sex marriage bans in Iowa were unconstitutional.

Before you start screaming "activist judges", I'll remind you that the judges ruling in Brown v. Board were also accused of so-called "judicial activism".

The Meaning of Marriage

The reason why I don't use "homosexuality" and "same-sex marriages" interchangeably, or why I don't include both in the same post, is because the two are only casually correlated.

If homosexuals can enter into opposite-sex marriages, which they do and which "traditional marriage" supporters would like homosexuals to do, why can't heterosexuals enter into same-sex marriages?

From my understanding, there is no good reason that heterosexuals can't enter into same-sex marriages. From my understanding, people fall in love with people's personalities, not just their bodies.

If we repeal DOMAs and other same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is born from commitment, security, and mental bonds. If we keep DOMAs and enforce same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is superficial and born solely towards animal characteristics (breeding) and gender roles.

Do you want to teach your children to fall in love with the one person who will give them commitment, security, mental bonds, and make them happy? Or do you want to teach your children to fall in love with someone for superficial reasons and so they can have as many babies as their coituses can handle?

(Note: I'm not saying that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the same sex, just as I didn't say that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the opposite sex. I'm saying that parents should think about what messages society is sending.)

Bailout?

Attended a guest speaking at CSU Dominguez Hills on Monday.

Speaker (whose name I cannot remember) talked about international policy with the US, and before, I was convinced that nobody, not even the banks, needed bailing out. Of course, I didn't realize just how much was tied to the banking system at the time.

Banks are the jumping-point for all kinds of financial transactions including investments, loans, pensions, etc. The simple question is this: If banks go under, who will take care of the investments, loans, pensions, etc.?

Answer: No one.

Q: If nobody takes care of these investments, loans, pensions, etc., what kind of message will that send to the American people (or foreign investors)?

A: That you can't count on banks to house your money. Or that you can't count on government to help you out in your hour of need. Or that you shouldn't invest. Or that, despite the fact that you work hard to support your family, your money can be wiped clean at any time because of somebody else's stupid mistake.

Illinois Family Institute Dangerously Misguiding

The Illinois Family Institute apparently is filled with ignorant people. Consider a passage from one of their articles:

The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking.

[...]

Higgins further emphasizes that "The worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time." The First Amendment already allows DOS participants to wear t-shirts or put up posters, but according to a document co-written by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, a "school can regulate what students say. . . and it can also insist that students respond to questions, make presentations, etc." Students and teachers should not be allowed to exploit instructional time to advance their socio-political goals.

The irony is that they have already acknowledged that students can be required to answer questions during school time, and yet they still argue that teachers are "required" to "create activities around or exempt silent students" from classroom activities!

Clearly, a treatise in gross ignorance.

Not Interchangable Like Trains

The following passage comes from: Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. Eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Prometheus: Amherst, 2004.

Glenn T. Stanton makes various hilariously ridiculous arguments that shows he has no concept of Due Process, judicial hearings, basic logic, or common sense. I wish I could take the time to include the entire passage here, but I'll settle for one passage that really highlights his ignorance.

In fact, Sosman concludes, the court “is persuaded that there are no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples” (emphasis added). But can any husband, wife, or child admit that his or her spouse or parent could be replaced by someone of any sex? Is emotional attachment all there is to these relationships? (p. 73)

I think the question is misleading, because it asks an even more fundamental question: "Can any husband, wife, or child admit that his or her spouse or parent could be replaced by someone?"

Indeed, they cannot! And how does a same-sex couple feel about their spouses or children? Perhaps the same? Or perhaps the children feel the same way about their parents?

In his quest to argue against same-sex marriages, Stanton finds himself accidentally arguing for them.

"Compelling" Evidence

I was reading an article by George A. Rekers, Ph. D. in St. Thomas L. Rev. entitled "An Empirically-Supported Rational Basis for Prohibiting Adoption, Foster Parenting, and Contested Child Custody by Any Person Residing in a Household That Includes a Homosexually-Behaving Member." I thought one of the most compelling findings he presented against homosexually-behaving parents was as follows:

In 2001, from a country long-recognized for its more tolerant acceptance of homosexuality, Theodorus Sandfort and colleagues published a study of a representative sample of the Dutch population (N=7076; aged 18-64 years), in which 5998 subjects could be classified as heterosexual or homosexual based on reported sexual behavior in the preceding year. 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women had same-sex partners. Reporting twelve-month prevalence rates, 21.1% of heterosexual men and 35.4% of homosexual men had one or more DSM diagnoses, and 22.4% of heterosexual women and 34.9% of homosexual women had one or more DSM diagnoses. Homosexual men had a higher twelve-month prevalence of mood disorders and anxiety disorders than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher twelve-month prevalence of substance use disorders. Reporting life-time prevalence rates, 41.4% of heterosexual men and 56.1% of homosexual men had one or more DSM diagnoses, and 39.1% of heterosexual women and 67.4% of homosexual women had one or more DSM diagnoses. Homosexual women had a higher life-time prevalence rate of mood disorders than heterosexual women.

At first glance, the evidence feels compelling, but I can think of four reasons why the evidence can be thrown out in a discussion of same-sex couples adopting.

1) It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant with regards to whether or not these couples are fit to raise children. The evidence (and subsequent arguments) do not show that couples with DSM disorders are unfit to raise children.

2) It's an argument against disorders. Surely, a couple can be tested for DSM disorders if we're concerned about the mental health and abilities of the parents.

3) It doesn't explore why these disorders came about. Consider the following. All my life, I assume myself to be a male, but one day I make the startling discovery that I'm a female. Couldn't that be cause for exhibiting existential crises and accumulating temporary mental disorders?

4) The mental disorders are undefined in the article. Consider some of the following mental disorders from the DSM-IV*:

• 625.8 Female hypoactive sexual desire disorder due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
• 608.89 Male hypoactive sexual desire disorder due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
• 302.71 Hypoactive sexual desire disorder
• 302.79 Sexual aversion disorder
• 302.72 Female sexual arousal disorder
• 302.72 Male erectile disorder
• 607.84 Male erectile disorder due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
• 302.73 Female orgasmic disorder
• 302.74 Male orgasmic disorder
• 302.75 Premature ejaculation
• 302.76 Dyspareunia (not due to a general medical condition)
• 625.0 Female dyspareunia due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
• 608.89 Male dyspareunia due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
• 306.51 Vaginismus (not due to a general medical condition)
• 625.8 Other female sexual dysfunction due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
• 608.89 Other male sexual dysfunction due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
• Sexual Abuse
  • V61.1 Sexual abuse of adult
  • 995.81 Sexual abuse of adult (if focus of attention is on victim)
  • V61.21 Sexual abuse of child
  • 995.5 Sexual abuse of child (if focus of attention is on victim)

• 302.9 Sexual disorder NOS
• 302.70 Sexual dysfunction NOS

Is it really illogical to presume that homosexuals are more prone to be diagnosed for a DSM-IV disorder if most of the definitions are close to the very definition of homosexuality itself?

While the article does well in controlling for the habitat (in terms of acceptance of homosexuality), it still misleads by failing to give us enough information with regards to why same-sex couples should be barred from adoption, or what disorders were exhibited by homosexual persons.

- - - - - - - - - -

*Codes can be found here.
Incomplete list of disorders presented above can be found here.

Cycles of Cash

Vox Day already had his comments about a certain article (in which he ripped the poor soul apart), but I have something quick to say about it as well.

The article in question criticizes the Austrian economist's view of how the bubble happened and what the US should do now. I really want to zero in on the following that Paul Krugman wrote:

Call it the overinvestment theory of recessions, or "liquidationism," or just call it the "hangover theory." It is the idea that slumps are the price we pay for booms, that the suffering the economy experiences during a recession is a necessary punishment for the excesses of the previous expansion.
[...]
Powerful as these seductions may be, they must be resisted—for the hangover theory is disastrously wrongheaded. Recessions are not necessary consequences of booms. They can and should be fought, not with austerity but with liberality—with policies that encourage people to spend more, not less.

It's funny, and I don't mean to bash on Paul Krugman or anything, but I wonder if he really does have a handle on how Wall Street bubbles are created.

The article I'm taking my ideas from might not be totally correct, but at the same time, it seems to make logical sense.

A bubble is created when investors see something, buy it, and sell it for more. Other investors buy it, turn around, and sell it for more, too. Pretty soon, investors see that the price of the thing is going up, so they too buy the thing, turn around, and sell it for more. At this point in time, it's a big happy party because prices go up as money flies everywhere. One might expect lamp shades to be atop everyone's heads (not just because people seem blind to the inevitable outcome).

However, eventually people find that the prices are too high, or don't think they can turn around and sell the thing for more than they're going to buy it for. Spending slows down. The people who have the things realize that they're not worth as much as the ticket they're holding says they're worth, so they desperately lower their prices in an attempt to get the stuff off their hands. Pretty soon, the party's over, and now all of that borrowed money or those future prospects of selling are gone. Kaput. No more future assets, and the current assets we have are grossly overvalued. That is, until they're reassessed and we realize that we're just trying to pawn off trash.

So yes, Mr. Krugman. It logically follows that recessions follow booms. But doesn't it follow that booms follow recessions as well? Doesn't it follow that we shouldn't tinker with the system, because it will eventually fix itself?

A Poorly Constructed Argument

I was reading an article by Jonathan Curci entitled "The Evolution of the Legal Concepts of “Family” and “Marriage” in the EU Legal System and Its Impact on Society." In the article, Curci argues against same-sex marriages, saying that they will be the downfall of society. In his conclusion, he makes three main points. This is his first point:

This circle can lead to a dysfunctional society. Often it is a dysfunctional heterosexual family that leads to homosexual behaviour. Indeed, scientific evidence demonstrates that a boy's perception that he has been abandoned by his father seems to be one of the factors associated with male attraction and homosexual behaviour. A girl's broken relationship with her father has a direct link to maintaining an intimate and emotional relationship with men. The loss of a father (through divorce) will mean that there is a higher risk of homosexuality. In turn, the legalisation of same-sex marriages means formally accepting most of the negative aspects causing this behaviour and promoting it as a new model (citation omitted).

This is his third point:

A final argument brought up by certain researchers is that a homoparental family model [...] runs counter to the interest of society since it annihilates the difference between sexes. This model is the first step towards a division of humanity into two worlds: one masculine and the other feminine, with no possibility that can recombine. The loss of any contact between a man and a woman may follow. There will be no effort to bridge gender differences since one can please himself staying in his own sexual world.

The funny thing is that he first argues that homosexuality is a result of dysfunctional families and is therefore outside of the person's control. After that, he argues that people -can- choose their sexual orientation and -will- choose it if they don't wish to interact with the opposite sex.

Furthermore, such a contradiction displays a complete lack of understanding in regards to scientific research on homosexuality. Not only has the author contradicted himself (and rather badly, too), but he demonstrates that he really does not peruse scientific articles carefully.

Reviewing Research

I was reading an article published in the Regent University Law Review in favor of traditional marriage type families. One of the arguments was that a father was clearly an important figure for a stable family and a successful child. The articles cited were these:

Econ: Greg J. Duncan et al., Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development, 65 Child Dev. 296 (1994); Abbie K. Frost & Bilge Pakiz, The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic, 60 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 544 (1990); M. Eileen Matlack et al., Family Correlates of Social Skill Deficits in Incarcerated and Non-incarcerated Adolescents, 29 Adolescence 117 (1994).

Psychology: John Beer, Relation of Divorce to Self-Concepts and Grade Point Averages of Fifth Grade School Children, 65 Psychol. Rep. 104 (1989); Virginia Smith Harvey, Characteristics of Children Referred to School Psychologists: A Discriminant Analysis, 28 Psychol. in Schools 209 (1991); Beverly Raphael et al., The Impact of Parental Loss on Adolescents' Psychological Characteristics, 25 Adolescence.

Education: Paul R. Amato & Bruce Keith, Parental Divorce and Adult Well-being: A Meta Analysis, 53 J. Marriage & The Family 43 (1991); Donna Goldberg et al., Which Newborns in New York City Are at Risk for Special Education Placement?

Emotion: Darin R. Featherstone et al., Differences in School Behavior and Achievement Between Children From Intact, Reconstituted and Single-Parent Families, 27 Adolescence 1 (1992).

Another article I came across was this one, which cited the following:

(Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002): 1.)

(Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief (May 2003): 1)

(Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405)

(Deborah A. Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Health and Well-being: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Child Health," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 573 -584)

(Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, My Brother’s Keeper: What the Social Sciences Do (and Don’t) Tell Us About Masculinity, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 121)

(David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 197)

(Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 38)

These were the sources cited. Assuming that the studies were entirely accurate and had no experimental errors, what can we extrapolate from the titles?

Two parents and marital stability are clearly important for a child.

But at this point, one might ask whether a father is clearly important for a child as well.

The answer is that the studies (at least, judging from their names) don't control for that. They don't control for same-sex male parents or same-sex female parents. They control for a "father-like" figure, but why can't a female (who has been married to the wife before the child was born/adopted) become the "father-like" figure?

Granted, I haven't read these studies, but to use these studies to immediately endorse traditional marriages is a practice in gross ignorance.

That's not to say that, were these studies conducted with the proper controls for parents married before the child was born, they would still lack value. That's to say that one should refrain from jumping to heinous conclusions.

Randomness

Below is a response I gave regarding one of the more common arguments I run across in favor of intelligent design:

"The stars, the moon, the sun and the planets, the earth that sits in a perfect distance from the sun and is tilted on it's axis at just the right angle."

I recommend Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book Fooled by Randomness. As Taleb states, if you have enough monkeys on typewriters, one of them is bound to reproduce Shakespeare's works.

So, too, we have an inordinately large number of planets in the universe, and an inordinately large number of stars that these planets revolve around. Randomness suggests that, given enough planets and enough stars, one planet must have had the correct configuration to sustain life.

Rethinking "Immoral" Acts

In his book Logic and Sexual Morality, John Wilson brings up the following:

Yet there is at least one other distinction which is much more important: the distinction between those who believe in what I shall call the fallacy of discrimination and those who do not. The fallacy runs as follows:

(a) x is an activity which can be of great value or significance for human beings;
(b) therefore people ought to use discrimination when they do x;
(c) therefore we must teach them that they should only do x in forms restricted by rules, precepts, principles, or ideals, because otherwise x will become devalued, meaningless, irresponsible, or positively wicked.

The argument in which I have outlined the fallacy contains (at least) one illegitimate move, and one key ambiguity. The illegitimate move is easily seen and dismissed. It does not follow from (b) people ought to use discrimination that (c) we must teach people anything specific. For it is not clear that we know what to teach in all cases, and if anything is a case where we do not know, it is surely sex.

Certainly, some types of behavior might be more valuable than others, but that doesn't mean other kinds of behavior should be -prohibited- or even -discouraged-.

I see eating dinner as valuable when I spend it with all of my friends, cooking it, and cleaning it up afterwards, but I certainly cannot do that every night, otherwise I wouldn't have time to do other things like homework! Are my other dinners less valuable or less meaningful? Sure! But should I say that eating a sandwich by my lonesome is immoral? I should hope not.

Does God Answer Prayers?

I stumbled upon an interesting post today, discussing whether God could respond to prayers and miraculously heal patients. The reasoning (which actually looks very pretty) was as follows:

Assumption (1). The patient currently has a medical problem.
Assumption (2). Praying for the patient to be healed can cause miraculous healing of that patient.
Assumption (3). The god to whom the prayer to heal the patient is directed :-

a) Exists;
b) Is all-powerful (omnipotent);
c) Is all-knowing (omniscient);
d) Has perfect judgement;
e) Will only do what is right;

Conclusion (4). An omnipotent being would be able to heal the patient (from 3a, 3b);
Conclusion (5). An omniscient being would already know about the patient’s problem. (from 1, 3a, 3c);
Conclusion (6). Any patient whom the god deems it right to heal will already be healed. (from 3d, 3e, 4, 5)
Conclusion (7). It is not right to heal the patient (from 1, 6).
Conclusion (8). Praying for the patient to heal will not cause miraculous healing of that patient (from 6, 7)

Contradiction : ( 2 & 8 )

Like I said, very pretty. But we can dismantle the argument very easily with another purely logical argument.

Imagine a god that is omnipotent. Would the god be able to create something that he could destroy? If so, he cannot destroy it, and therefore he is not omnipotent. If not, he cannot create it, and therefore he is not omnipotent.

The same thing applies to omniscience. Could this god be able to create a machine whose inner workings he cannot understand? If so, then he is not omniscient, because he cannot see the inner workings of the mechanism. If not, then he is not omniscient, because there exist a concept which he cannot create.

A god cannot, by logical definitions, be omnipotent or omniscient, therefore (ironically) conclusions 4 and 5 cannot hold by logical definitions. Thus, any subsequent conclusions drawn using conclusions 4 and 5 as a basis are falsified as well.

In essence, the argument disproves two radically opposing ideas - that a god can be omnipotent/omniscient, and that a god cannot heal through prayer.

A Test of Economic Schools

The reason I'm so excited about the proposed stimulus packages in the U.S. is because we'll finally have a speck of empirical proof to see whether Keynesian economics, Austrian economics, or any economics can explain how best to pull somebody out of an economic crisis.

Interestingly, I go to the University of Arizona and was taught (rather dogmatically) that the stimulus package was the way to go because an increase in aggregate demand leads to an increase in funds for the company leads to an increase in workers' wages leads to an increase in household income leads to an increase in total spending leads to an increase in aggregate demand, etc. The idea that markets were self-regulating took up about forty seconds of the lecture, in comparison.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is a big proponent of Austrian economic thought. A recent article discussed the proposed economic stimulus package in terms of a baker and his goods. The analogy ran something along the lines as follows:

A baker produces bread and trades the bread for other goods, say, shoes. Both are "final goods" and both are what the baker is paying for. If the baker goes ahead and pays somebody to make a stove, then they probably will also pay in bread (seeing as money is only a facilitation of trade... something that the Keynesian economists time and time again fail to recognize, or so I feel like the Austrian school would allege). However, if the baker can no longer produce the final good, then the stove will not be created, because the final goods aren't there to be traded.

Similarly, government cannot stimulate the economy by creating false jobs and frivolous spending. Continuous spending and increasing monetary supply (through the Fed) is just a charade. Real people who exist outside the government would not think much of these false jobs that create false wealth and ensure a false healing to our staggering economy. Indeed, the funding -also- has to come from somewhere, and Frank Shostak (from the article) appears to be arguing that the money will come out of taxpayers' wallets. Money coming from taxpayers' wallets means they won't be able to do more (real) productive things with that money, so less and less "real" productivity would occur while more and more "false" productivity would occur.

Come to think of it, Shostak's article is all just an interesting treatise on Jean Baudrillard's ideas on simulation and simulacra, government spending becoming the simulation, and Keynesian economics being the simulacra-like ideas.

In any case, we will have to wait and see. Sadly, this might be the only time we'll get to investigate what could save us from an economic crisis, so we -still- wouldn't have enough evidence after we pull out to draw conclusions...