1) I wasn’t rephrasing a single sentence from a single one of Kurtz’s pieces; I was paraphrasing his larger argument. Perhaps I’ll email him and ask whether I did so adequately. In the meantime, recall that I emphasized that the rights-based themes was “the principal theme,” and that Kurtz, in that sentence, wrote “one of.”

2) I have no idea how you get this:

Dr. Kurtz seems to think one of the principal themes of those advocating same sex marriage is the idea that parents should not be married, or that unmarried parents are preferable to married parents.

from this:

A careful look at the decade-long campaign for same-sex marriage in the Netherlands shows that one of its principal themes was the effort to dislodge the conviction that parenthood and marriage are intrinsically linked.

Do you see no difference between “should not be married” and don’t necessarily have to be married (”intrinsically linked”)?

3) You write: “If Mr. Katz elevates the necessary consequence he chooses to the level of principle theme, why not elevate this obvious necessary consequence?” Even by your own argument that’s a misstatement. What I stated was the principal theme was the rights-based argument; at no point did I call that a consequence of the parent/stability theme.

4) You write:

Reading “Going Dutch” I find no argument to explain why the potential for procreation is the “intrinsic link”.

Do you want to search the second page of “Going Dutch?” for the word “procreation,” or do I have to quote all of the instances?

5) It’s still “principal”.

No cake and ice cream for either one of you!

I am aware that, with your single sentence, you were paraphrasing the larger argument in Going Dutch. I thought my references to the word “argument” and “shows how to find the theme”, suggests a process of reading, extracting information and presenting it to us in a concise form. I did not intend to suggest you did otherwise, I’m sorry if it reads that way to you.

I also did not suggest your paraphrase was incorrect. Although, if you are concerned, certainly you should write Dr. Kurtz and ask him.

I also said that you say the rights based theme is the principal theme.

However, to make sense of the idea that you believe Dr. Kurtz lists is “one of the principal themes” I must either believe that:

1) You agree that there are additionalprincipal themes. (And we can figure them out somehow.)
2) That Kurtz mis-spoke at the very beginning of his article and stated the wrong theme– in your opinion.

Since you seem to have no objection to thinking the theme Kurtz provides at the beginning of the article is “one of” the principle themes, I am assuming you do not really insists there is only ONE principal theme.

However, if the singular/plural difficulty is your objection, and you prefer to state the principal theme called out by Dr. Kurtz is wrong, because it is not THE principle theme. I’ll accept that. In which case, possibly you can write Dr. Kurtz and suggest he give that non-principle theme another, more precise, name. Possibly subordinate theme?

2) I have no idea how you get this: (etc)

Would it change your objection if I said “need not”? I’d be happy to make that editorial change. It makes no particular difference in my argument, since Dr. Kurtz has not shown that they think that either.

3) You write: “If Mr. Katz elevates the necessary consequence he chooses to the level of principle theme, why not elevate this obvious necessary consequence?” Even by your own argument that’s a misstatement. What I stated was the principal theme was the rights-based argument; at no point did I call that a consequence of the parent/stability theme.

Let me clarify (hopefully this comes out ok in the comments!):

General: Principle theme => “elevated inevitable consequence”.
Kurtz: Rights => procreation an theme (transformed into parental-marriage linkage) theme.
Me: Rights => nurturing (and committed relationships) theme.

So, is Dr. Kurtz simply flat out wrong when he calls the parental-marriage linkage a principal theme, because, in fact, the rights based theme is THE principal one? And there is only one? Or is it ok for him to call it “one of the” principal themes for some reasons? If so, what is that reason?

Or am only I wrong? Or is your difficulty with my imprecise use of language and failure to insert “two of”? If so, I will be happy to make that editorial change. It is more precise, but makes no real difference to my argument.

4) ….
Do you want to search the second page of “Going Dutch?” for the word “procreation,” or do I have to quote all of the instances?

Do you want to go through with a highlighter and see who says those words? Answer: Religious conservative opponents of the campaign for same sex marriage who claim its the principal theme of the advocates. I think you will agree that I am probably not the best source of to quote if one wishes to find the principal themes of the opposition of SSM.

But, if you don’t believe me, I’ll let you do the word search, find the names and get back to us.

5) It’s still “principal”.
Yep. You told me in your previous email, and I’m afraid I’m inattentive to spelling. The nuns alwasy chastised me for that. Sorry, that irritates you.

Perhaps Mr. Katz feels he has been ‘had’ (his post), truth or not,

but the one thing I’ve learned from reading all this correlation data and discussion,

is that the correlation in this case (as in most cases) is a poor argument for causation. Mr. Katz’s and other’s arguments for the ‘demise’ of Scandinavian marriage and family (the demise itself being debateble) being correlated with the gay rights movement is highly suspect and EVEN if there is a correlation, there has been no proof of causation.

Its bad science. Period.

Frankly, I’m unconvinced by Lucia’s arguments for a coorelation and causation of gay marriage rights with strengthening marriage in the US, though I find them as strong as Mr. Katz’s contrary arugments

For the very same reason I’m unconvinced of Mr. Katz’s arguments for the opposite in Scandinavia.

The correlation is weak, even non-existent, and the causation is not only unproven but complete conjecture.

Now, about the numbers. Want to know my motive for thinking that Lucia’s work here has been most impressive? Fine, here goes.

I am impressed by this research because it supports something that my own conscience has been telling me for well over a decade. Gay marriage is right, and good, and harmful to no one.

No doubt the opposite side finds the Kurtz research to be the more impressive for precisely the same reason–their consciences tell them so. They squint and hold the screen at funny angles to get the slanted line in the Dutch data to line up with their consciences, and suddenly they’re happy again.

Fine. I know I’m certainly not losing any sleep over it. It’s just a pity that so many people can be swayed by such flimsy results, merely because they give some validation, however feeble, to what they already believe.

Lucia, you’ve done a fine job, and you’ve got nothing at all to be ashamed of in any of this. Keep up the good work.

And Justin Katz has done more or less the same thing for the opposite point of view.

What I can’t understand is why anyone seriously thinks the whole exercise is anything other than intellectual masturbation.

Lucia, take a look at ampersand’s post rebutting right-wing claims about the UNFPA. Now that’s a good post.

jesus. if “marriage and children are inextricably linked” then explain how the hell i’m 20 weeks along and i can’t even legally marry the father because HE IS ALREADY MARRIED.

grrrr…

Did somebody say cake and ice cream?

Dana, I wish you the best!