Pffffffft.

You say, “Hudson sees both same-sex marriage and “traditional” marriage, which most people consider synonymous with heterosexual marriage but actually isn’t, as leading to gender inequality. Your graphs, while impressive, do not address the core of Hudson’s argument.”

This is probably a much weaker argument than it initially appears to you. The analysis above shows that there is a very high hurdle to pass to conclude that acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage causes gender inequality. The data don’t speak to the question of whether Hudson’s “traditional” marriage causes gender inequality, although there’s actually a tautology concern there: traditional marriage is by definition unequal in gender matters. However, if there is a positive relationship between traditional marriage and gender equality, then the data in the post above suggest that traditional marriage and same-sex marriage have divergent relationships with gender equality. Hudson’s argument thus becomes a brief against gender inequity within heterosexual marriage but irrelevant to debates over same-sex marriage.

I think Scott B. is being a bit unfair here. Your argument is (I believe) flawed, but not silly. And whether people are intelligent or have large vocabularies is completely irrelevant: what matters is whether their arguments are well-founded, clearly enough to be understood by the intended reader, and backed up with evidence.

I think you overly worry over the distinction between causation and correlation. Correlation of A with B does not imply causation A -> B or B -> A but (barring sheer coincidence) does imply that there is some causal link correlating the two (perhaps C -> A and C -> B, perhaps further removed). There may be multiple (not necessarily independent) causative agents. Correlation is a “smoking gun” that is sufficient reason to explore the matter further.

It is important to recall that the burden of proof is on the published writing of a (political) scientist, not on those who rebut that argument. In the presence of a contraindicative correlation, it is Ms. Hudson that owes us an explanatory hypothesis that is both plausible (so we give her temporary benefit of the doubt) and falsifiable (an experiment we, and preferably she, can run to defend her thesis).

From the scatter plots of the original post, I can reasonably conclude that Hudson’s hypothesis is unworthy of a temporary benefit of the doubt, and so I join with the others who call call on Hudson to defend her publication. Until then, as in all scientifically valid endeavors, the tie goes to the doubters.

I read only the Preface to the English edition of your prior citation (Parity of the Sexes by Sylviane Agacinski). I believe her argument is exemplified in three of her sentences:

Thus, the culture of parity seems to want to ensure the equality of the sexes at the expense of “the equality of the sexualities”.

I think this is a strawman. It is not “equality” but “equity” that is the better metric (and more widely advocated). Women do not want to be men, but they want to be equally valued (equivalent) and equally powerful (equipotent). It is the availability of choice, not the restriction of choice to a narrow definition of equality, that is empowering.

the legalization of homosexuality has no direct connection to the family or marriage because, contrary to what you may read here or there, marriage was not instituted to legalize heterosexuality, but to regulate filiation.

I have two problems with this:

1) I.e. it’s not about the spouse, it’s about the children. This is an axiom, not a conclusion. In fact, I suspect only a minority of Americans would enter a marriage with lukewarm interest in a spouse merely to coparent.

2) “instituted” implies that someone created marriage, rather than an organically evolving social contract encoded much later in law. It also invites one to infer that the (past) original intent is normative, rather than a continuing revelation on the current and future relevance of marriage and the expectations of the parties. There are many dead institutions (e.g. slavery) whose original pragmatics are (to put it mildly) no longer compelling. In the Bible, Jesus says that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. It is not irrational to substitute the word marriage for Sabbath here.

One can easily be parent…not as homosexual nor…as heterosexual…it is first of all as man or woman, and thus with a second parent of another sex.

The first part of this statement (the protasis) is a hypothesis which may be true or false. Naturally, if it is true, the second part (apodosis) follows trivially. This exemplifies the seemingly compelling faux-authoritative style of the author (admittedly in translation). The uncritical reader is invited to mistake an implication for a fact, although the meat is in the hypothesis, not the conclusion.

It is (to me) unlikely (but please direct me to any contrary evidence) that a child attributes power to the bond between parents because they provide different enriching experiences. Otherwise, she might as well be raised by an English teacher and a math teacher. It is the love between parents that is modeled to the child, for religious families a reification of the divine on earth. The child learns love not from parent to child (which is necessarily rather one-sided in the beginning) but by observing the peer love between spouses for each other. Affection towards the child is expected. It is the affection between parents that conflicts with the inborn narcissism of babies and instills a more noble and richer sense of love.

You may disagree with the above contentions, but it is enough that you find them plausible. Assertion is not fact, and I would have preferred in Agacinski’s book a few less polysyllabic words and a few more scatter plots.

P.S. If you have read this far and your name is Irene or Juliann, then I thank you for the courtesy.

However, the post sets itself up as though it is finding a causal relationship between the two (if not, then there is no need for the graphs and fancy language). It says the results do not “necessarily” cause each other–that isn’t as clear as it should be, especially given the tone of the rest of the argument and the responses to it.

You made an assertion which (thanks, Kristine) is directly contradicted by the original post’s words. If you’ve got something substantial to say, then say it–no problem there–but criticizing the use of scatter plots to demonstrate correlation analysis is highly correlated with silliness. Criticizing intelligent people with large vocabularies for using big words is also highly correlated with defensiveness and an inability to admit when you made a bad argument in the first place.

“These results do not necessarily mean that acceptance of homosexuality causes gender equality, or vice versa.”

Is there some part of that that’s unclear?

You are treating gender equality and acceptance of homosexuality as though they have a causal relationship when they are correlative. Of course countries who repress one group are more likely to repress another, but more respect for gender equality itself does not mean that a society will be more accepting of homosexuals or vice versa. Both of these stem from other factors such as modernization and education.

Hudson sees both same-sex marriage and “traditional” marriage, which most people consider synonymous with heterosexual marriage but actually isn’t, as leading to gender inequality. Your graphs, while impressive, do not address the core of Hudson’s argument.