5,405 Maine households are being harmed

All thanks to the bigots of Maine:

The number of homes with same-sex couples has grown nearly 60 percent over the past decade in Maine, according to census data released as same-sex marriage advocates gather petitions that could lead to the state’s second statewide referendum on gay marriage.

Data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau show that the number of same-sex households grew 59 percent from 3,394 in 2000 to 5,405 in 2010 in Maine.

This is both good and bad news. It’s bad for the obvious reason that it means there are so many households being discriminated against – not to mention all the people who would be more likely to live together could they get married in Maine. But it’s good news because it means more and more gay couples are feeling comfortable enough to declare their status. This is all despite the efforts of Christians to shame people for who they are.

The Rev. Bob Emrich, chairman of the Christian Civic League of Maine, which opposes gay marriage, said the percentage growth in same-sex households may sound impressive, but he said the overall numbers are small. He doesn’t think the new census numbers are relevant to the debate.

Oh. I forgot that it’s okay to discriminate so long as it’s only against a small number of people. Good argument, Emrich.

And an abuse of philisophy

Given my need to use a link within a recent post, I clicked over to Punching Bag Neil’s site. I found one of his traditional trolling Red Herring Theist posts where he says atheists have no grounding for atheism. Quoting another Red Herring Theist, he poses this question:

Here are some questions you can ask Richard Dawkins (and by extension any new atheist) the next time you sit next to him on a bus:…

• What makes your moral standard more than a subjective opinion or personal preference? What makes it truly binding or obligatory? Why can’t I just ignore it? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?

I know Neil has this nasty habit of insulating himself from most outside criticism – it’s a common thing in the Christian blogosphere – but I would like to turn the question back on him and his silly little Christian brethren. What makes your moral standards more than subjective? How do you objectively know God exists? How do you objectively know anything in the Bible is true? Are you God himself? If not, then what method are you using to get outside yourself? After all, if you’re using a human brain to interpret anything, you can’t possibly be doing something which is not 100% subjective.

So why are you raising yourself to the level of God, Neil? Aren’t you being disrespectful to your particular, cultural icon?

More abuse of science

It’s a common tactic for anti-gay bigots to distort science. One of their favorites ways to do so is to find studies which are limited in their scope to ‘traditional’ families, but then they take a wrecking ball to the science by pretending that they’re looking at something comparative. I documented one bigot who did just that.

But that isn’t their only tactic. So long as they can distort a scientific study in some way, they will. Take this instance of an anti-gay bigot from the Congressional hearings on the repeal of DADT.

This is common not only of Christians, but much of the conservative movement. So long as a citation is being made, they think they’ve proven their case. Who cares if their source actually contradicts what they have to say?

Bring on the danger

No more than a couple of weeks ago I found myself atop a 30 foot train trestle in a nearby town. It’s a popular spot for summer time lake jumping, but this day it had no visitors but myself and two friends. Unbeknownst to us, you see, a late afternoon thunderstorm was making its way across the region. In fact, as we followed the train tracks to the bridge, the wind began to whip up, the darkened clouds racing overhead. We knew rain was certainly on the way, probably a bit more. But we didn’t drive all that way for nothing.

Just as we set foot on the trestle, the clouds began to open. A rumble of thunder could be heard in the distance. But as three brash, young men, we accepted the challenge. After all, a 30 foot jump is no small fall, but in a thunder storm? Who could pass up the thrill? Not us.

And so one by one, we took the plunge, one of us (read: me) occasionally yelling “Boat!” as the others, no longer able to change their trajectory, jumped. And again and again we jumped. It was a complete blast, a small tempt of fate on an otherwise lazy summer day. I would do it again, always with the back-of-the-mind hope that future generations will continue the tradition. But who knows. With all these hyper-safe playgrounds we’ve been creating, that sort of courage may be on short supply:

“Children need to encounter risks and overcome fears on the playground,” said Ellen Sandseter, a professor of psychology at Queen Maud University in Norway. “I think monkey bars and tall slides are great. As playgrounds become more and more boring, these are some of the few features that still can give children thrilling experiences with heights and high speed.”

After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia, Dr. Sandseter identified six categories of risky play: exploring heights, experiencing high speed, handling dangerous tools, being near dangerous elements (like water or fire), rough-and-tumble play (like wrestling), and wandering alone away from adult supervision. The most common is climbing heights.

“Climbing equipment needs to be high enough, or else it will be too boring in the long run,” Dr. Sandseter said. “Children approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, and very few children would try to climb to the highest point for the first time they climb. The best thing is to let children encounter these challenges from an early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through their play over the years.”

I happen to be just old enough to remember mildly dangerous playgrounds. It took me some time, but I would always build up to the more daring feats, progressively conquering each section and level of the park. It looks like research confirms that many other children also do this.

The first thing that went through my head, though, when reading about this was the landing areas. I remember wood chips and maybe some rubber always softening my landings. It seems to make sense and intuition says that will make things safer, but in a similar vain to what Michael Hartwell has said about driving, that may not be the case:

“There is no clear evidence that playground safety measures have lowered the average risk on playgrounds,” said David Ball, a professor of risk management at Middlesex University in London. He noted that the risk of some injuries, like long fractures of the arm, actually increased after the introduction of softer surfaces on playgrounds in Britain and Australia.

“This sounds counterintuitive, but it shouldn’t, because it is a common phenomenon,” Dr. Ball said. “If children and parents believe they are in an environment which is safer than it actually is, they will take more risks. An argument against softer surfacing is that children think it is safe, but because they don’t understand its properties, they overrate its performance.”

I would like to see statistics that divide between rubber and other materials such as wood chips, but I’m not familiar enough with the subject area to know if those exist. It is interesting, however, that kids are willing to take such risks. I think this all points to a deeper desire to explore, to make the world a little dangerous. That’s one of the things that’s exciting about life.

Still, sometimes there’s nothing quite like being 10 feet off the ground, as a new generation was discovering the other afternoon at Fort Tryon Park. A soft rubber surface carpeted the pavement, but the jungle gym of Mr. Stern’s youth was still there. It was the prime destination for many children, including those who’d never seen one before, like Nayelis Serrano, a 10-year-old from the South Bronx who was visiting her cousin.

When she got halfway up, at the third level of bars, she paused, as if that was high enough. Then, after a consultation with her mother, she continued to the top, the fifth level, and descended to recount her triumph.

“I was scared at first,” she explained. “But my mother said if you don’t try, you’ll never know if you could do it. So I took a chance and kept going. At the top I felt very proud.” As she headed back for another climb, her mother, Orkidia Rojas, looked on from a bench and considered the pros and cons of this unfamiliar equipment.

“It’s fun,” she said. “I’d like to see it in our playground. Why not? It’s kind of dangerous, I know, but if you just think about danger you’re never going to get ahead in life.”

Thought of the day

There really is no good evidence that shows anything in the Bible is both true and not trivial. And, yes, I know it’s a popular thing nowadays to insist that Jesus was a real historical figure, but that evidence is not notably better today than it was any time in the past.

And while I’m on this, C.S. Lewis and a number of other Christians actually try to put forth an argument that the resurrection of Jesus is proof of his existence, his divinity, his saving of the world, and probably cute puppies. Or at least they say “Well, IF it really happened, then it must all be true!” So? So the hell what? If the Pope poops golden blueberries that enrich and feed the world, then he’s a heck of a guy, but that doesn’t mean he has done it.

New tab

WordPress calls it a page, but pshaw! to them. I added a new tab at the top of the site for all the Hubble images I’ve posted.

Go be awed.

Get out your ruler. I dare you.

I’ve done a post about average penis size and another about average breast size, but it never crossed my mind to do one about average anus size. If it did, that information might be helpful to the Catholic Church right about now:

WITH no apparent evidence other than a photograph of Spanish priest Andrés García Torres hugging a young Cuban seminarian, the Catholic bishop of Getafe has leapt to the outrageous conclusion that there is something gay about two topless men in a warm embrace.

According to this report, the bishop now wants the priest to abandon his parish in the Madrid dormitory town of Fuenlabrada, undergo a psychiatric cure, and take an HIV test.

Torres responded by saying he intends going to Rome to show that he is being expelled from his parish unfairly.

The priest, who insists that her and the 28-year-old with whom he was photographed on a trip to Fátima are just good friends, and threw down this challenge:

Let them measure my anus and see if it is dilated.

Next up, the predictive potential of taints.

Thank you, Wal-Mart

I don’t hate everything the corporate giant has given us.

Carina Nebula

Another great space photograph. From the site:

Several well known astronomical objects in and near the Carina Nebula can be seen in this wide field image: to the bottom left of the image is one of the most impressive binary stars in the Universe, Eta Carinae, with the famous Keyhole Nebula just adjacent to the star. The collection of very bright, young stars above and to the right of Eta Carinae is the open star cluster Trumpler 14. A second open star cluster, Collinder 228 is also seen in the image, just below Eta Carinae. North is up and East is to the left.

Thought of the day

Can we stop adding “gate” to the end of every controversy that happens?

Please.