Lesbian Couples have lower performing children: worse than even single mother homes.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
dadudeman, again, you ignored two challenges to further the validity of this study and continue the discussion by focusing on me and accusing me of "psycho-shit". I want to make some things from my viewpoint crystal clear:

I find your posting of this study and defense of it suspect. You even indicated early on that it changed your beliefs and that you were mislead by other studies before it. Pandering you've done to lesbian couples and their rights later doesn't over-ride that behavior but just draws a stark contrast.

You did admit at some point that stability might be the only real conclusion to draw from this study, but only after defending rigorously the method of the study and how valid it should be taken and refusing to really acknowledge the level of bias which perpetuated the work. 700k from Witherspoon went into this. That's a lot of money to potentially be wrong right before legislation goes through.

Even if the focus is mainly on lesbian couples, the underlying assumption here based on the study you're advocating and the comments you've made is that a hetero nuclear family is preferable, even if only statistically. Astner's first comment is pretty much a knee-jerk response to what he and I both perceived to be your underlying point. You didn't go out of your way to tell him he's wrong.

Regarding you saying "have at it", you quoted him and didn't name drop me, so it looked like you were supporting his boorish behavior. If not, whatever. You can go bla bla bla psycho-shit in an attempt to write me off or accuse me of being combative but again, that's misdirection. I want to know why you refuse to accept the bias of this study. I want to know why you felt this study was worthy of any merit other than bigot propaganda. These are relevant points. Either you're doing some kind of convoluted devil's advocate or just trying to hide your own acceptance of the study. Again, when you say it changed your beliefs and that other studies which contradict it mislead you, this begs for some kind of rationale.

K.

I see nothing of substance in your post.

Hint: I supported gay marriage and gay adoption and still do. I think this study, regardless of anything you think about it, has truth to it and libtards are buttmad over it. Didb't think they were this buttmad, though. I honestly thought the study was innocuous until this thread.

Children of gays have a hard time growing up.

Get madder.

Edit - I challenged you to refute the data: it was not collected incorrectly. Purchase it and do your own analysis. See if your analysis contradicts Mr. Poopoo.

Also, for why we even ended up with a study like that, review this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

Buy it. Then let us know when we can expect a better study than Mr. Poopoo's that does not get levied all the criticisms that link I just sent you.

I suspect you won't get funding on a genuine study on this topic for a while. People are not interested in the science (like you): they are interested in the politics. Even studying this shows one will have a bias: why would you be interested? mmhmm

Your openmindedness is only matched by your cool composure.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Your openmindedness is only matched by your cool composure.

K.

DDM, I think your first post sums it up: "I think the first link seems biased."

This is true for both sites. For the family structures studies link, there is the immediate red-flag that heterosexual married couples are called "intact families" and all other arrangements are painted as some variant of single parenthood. In fact, the study included only one child raised by a male-male pairing for a duration of more than 3 years. Somehow the authors saw fit to include that one child in the same group as single (gay) men who were not actively dating. A study which enforces no categorical difference between a paired gay man and a single gay man while claiming that the results are typical of all gay partnerships is biased.

From the website itself:

First, it compares the outcomes of children who reported having a mother who had a lesbian relationship with another woman (MLR for short) or a father who had a gay relationship with another man (FGR for short) with the outcomes of children who reported coming from an intact biological family (IBF for short).

I hate to argue with you about statistical methods, because I recognize that my 2 years of mostly theory will not stand up to the kind of experience that you have. However, this particular study seems to be deliberately obscuring confounding variables. No amount of statistical refinement will solve the problem of comparing married straight couples with unmarried gay couples and claiming that the sexuality is the issue.

It is hardly a controversial finding that single-parent households struggle more than two-parent households. Comparing single parent homosexual households against dual-parent heterosexual households completely fails to account for that established trend. This is a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

TL;DR: The study compares single gay men/women against paired straight marriages and concludes that the difference in outcome is due to sexuality, rather than marriage status.

Originally posted by Zampanó
DDM, I think your first post sums it up: "I think the first link seems biased."

This is true for both sites. For the family structures studies link, there is the immediate red-flag that heterosexual married couples are called "intact families" and all other arrangements are painted as some variant of single parenthood. In fact, the study included only one child raised by a male-male pairing for a duration of more than 3 years. Somehow the authors saw fit to include that one child in the same group as single (gay) men who were not actively dating. A study which enforces no categorical difference between a paired gay man and a single gay man while claiming that the results are typical of all gay partnerships is biased.

From the website itself:

To reiterate, it compares the set1 {single gay guardians, paired gay guardians} against the set {married straight guardians}. [b]More to the point, it names set1 "FGR," obscuring the distinction of marriagepairing status.

I hate to argue with you about statistical methods, because I recognize that my 2 years of mostly theory will not stand up to the kind of experience that you have. However, this particular study seems to be deliberately obscuring confounding variables. No amount of statistical refinement will solve the problem of comparing married straight couples with unmarried gay couples and claiming that the sexuality is the issue.

It is hardly a controversial finding that single-parent households struggle more than two-parent households. Comparing single parent homosexual households against dual-parent heterosexual households completely fails to account for that established trend. This is a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

TL;DR: The study compares single gay men/women against paired straight marriages and concludes that the difference in outcome is due to sexuality, rather than marriage status. [/B]

"Gay parents" compared against the "intact biological" unit of parenting. That seems like a legit comparison, to me.

It showed that the children of lesbian mothers fared worse than even straight single mothers...and the 2 homes that had the same lesbian couple all 18 years would just improve that result for the "lesbian" side. What I'm saying is, the comparison complaint seems odd since the point was to see other types of relationships worked out against "stable biological parents".

I think the results show that it is rare to have a stable lesbian set of parents.

I would also note that one lesbian mother who criticized this study said that times are different and most of these children came from a less tolerant society. I tend to agree. That's why I want another study done (but has a large sample size and also is truly random). Essentially, this other study is outdated from the inception. If they had a massive sample pool to start and then cut off those that were 30 or older, I think we'd get a much better idea of what it was like to raise children in a more modern more tolerant time.

Excuse me for being jaded but I don't think the 60s were the best of times to be homosexual and raise a child.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Gay parents" compared against the "intact biological" unit of parenting. That seems like a legit comparison, to me.

It showed that the children of lesbian mothers fared worse than even straight single mothers...and the 2 homes that had the same lesbian couple all 18 years would just improve that result for the "lesbian" side.

Except it doesn't have a fair comparison because it deliberately draws conclusions based on a sample of unstable or single parent gay homes versus stable married hertero family units. The two stable couples were the only potentially valid comparison to the married heterosexual couples because all the others are not indicative of long term gay partners producing substandard children.

This study may also not account for variables such as whether or not the children were adopted and at what age, if they had learning disabilities, if they were bullied, and how much support they got all around compared to children of straight couples. Like many minorities, they could suffer from cultural bias not accounted for in this study.

EDIT: Your update does recognize the cultural bias.

I think the results show that it is rare to have a stable lesbian set of parents.

No, the results show that among the people interviewed, it is somewhat rare to have a stable lesbian set of parents. You are not allowed to generalize to the population based on a sample of lesbian parents numbering roughly 400.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except it doesn't have a fair comparison because it deliberately draws conclusions based on a sample of unstable or single parent gay homes versus stable married hertero family units.

They were compared to single parents, too...and still fared worse (whereas, based on yours and Zamp's points, they should have done better since they lumped the stable gay parents in there, too).

I don't think this is a good point. If the results showed that they did better than even the single parents, I would then think it's a very good point about their "lumping."

Originally posted by Zampanó
No, the results show that among the people interviewed, it is somewhat rare to have a stable lesbian set of parents.

Do you have a source that shows homosexuals form long-lasting relationships with one partner for 18 years that mirrors that of the heterosexual population? I believe the GDF has talked about this subject before and the data is both old and conflicting.

Edit - No, the results in that study showed it was very rare, not somewhat rare...even compared to single mothers.

Originally posted by Zampanó
You are not allowed to generalize to the population based on a sample of lesbian parents numbering roughly 400.

I disagree, of course. Mostly because you can generalize with a sample of 400 in statistics. There are ways of measuring that. Edit - I looked on teh interwebz and in my old excel files to find something...couldn't find jack diddly to help.

We'd have to know the population attributes to check to see if the sample is representative. The best I could find was an old definition that talked about normal distribution and a minimum random sample size of 30.

HA!

The only shit I could find was anti-gay marriage shiiit.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

I think the basic answer to this thread is, that this study has too many problems to be taken as indicative about anything regarding current trends.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the basic answer to this thread is, that this study has too many problems to be taken as indicative about anything regarding current trends.

http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Regnerus.pdf

http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Amato.pdf

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings

http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/13.meral.pdf

http://www.aafesp.org.br/biblioteca/AtencaoSaude/Why_do_we_need_a_diagnostic.pdf

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think the basic answer to this thread is, that this study has too many problems to be taken as indicative about anything regarding current trends.

I might agree: it is most likely outdated due to how old the average respondent was. They might have jaded or even cynical views of their parents compared to someone who just turned 21 and grew up in homosexual parent-homes (those gay houses...being all gay n'stuff). The reason is clear: older people are not too pro-gay.

Additionally just taking 18 years (for graduation to apply), the public image of homosexuality has changed tremendously in that time, marriage is only now becoming a more common option for homosexual couples for example.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally just taking 18 years (for graduation to apply), the public image of homosexuality has changed tremendously in that time, marriage is only now becoming a more common option for homosexual couples for example.

Yeah, that too.

But, our generation and younger seem to be much more liberal about it. One thing I notice about anyone younger than 34 is the overwhelming social liberalness in public policy opinion. Something happened from the millennials, on. I think it may actually have a little something to do with the digital age give the millennials access to a shit ton of data at the literal click of a button. Instead of relying on their parents, priests, etc. for opinions on social stuff, they had other sources.

That's just my own speculation and it is not backed up by anything scientific.

Wait, maybe it is...brb.

Yup, millennials are some liberal mother ****ers that prefer civil liberties over security:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/millennial-generation-and-civil-liberties

I'm pretty sure that translate into social policy, as well.

Yup, found something:

http://ndn.org/paper/2007/progressive-politics-millennial-generation

So, yeah, the children of gay millennials, imo, are going to PROBABLY show a different outcome.

Originally posted by Astner
In case you don't have access to Encyclopedia Britanica you can always consult your good friend Google, which happens to have a ton of studies on the subject sharing the same conclusion.

http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Regnerus.pdf

http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Amato.pdf

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings

http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/13.meral.pdf

http://www.aafesp.org.br/biblioteca/AtencaoSaude/Why_do_we_need_a_diagnostic.pdf

The Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion is a conservative Christian public policy institute and Family Research Council is a conservative Christian lobbying organization that is classified as an anti-gay hate group.

These are the organizations that conducted your corroborating studies?

😆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Family Research Council is a conservative Christian lobbying organization that is classified as an anti-gay hate group.

FRC had one article I read earlier that was surprisingly honest in it's approach when analyzing something. That was just one author, though.

With Christian groups, you do sometimes get genuine and honest people. Same thing with conservative speakers. Same thing with liberal scientists. I just can't group them altogether and say "Derp! They are biased! Only purely objective scientists and their research count!" They don't really exist.

It would be wrong to assume that all conservatives or Christian scientists (NOOOOT to be confused with Christian Scientists...lol...) should be immediately discredited and their research thrown out. To do so smacks of liberal elitism (check it: that's actually something that some researchers and scientists complain about: the liberal elitism that keeps some projects form getting funded and some people pushed out).

But in this case they are biased. They've proven time and time again that they have a predisposed prejudice against the group that they are 'researching', and so that must be taken into account when looking at their findings. You vaguely mentioning an article that you thought was fair, without citing it specifically, isn't meaningful evidence of anything.

The fact that you're trying to compare actual scientists (calling them liberal is a lazy attempt to discredit them), who by their very nature are people searching for objective truth, with these people, who are conducting "research" to show something that they already believe and will slant it to meet their beliefs, is just silly.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion is a conservative Christian public policy institute and Family Research Council is a conservative Christian lobbying organization that is classified as an anti-gay hate group.

These are the organizations that conducted your corroborating studies?

Now since these scientific studies support Christian ideas they're obviously going to be promoted by Christians. However that doesn't make them less rigorous.

That aside, even if they were published by professors at Baylor's your supposed dismissal of them would be an appeal to motivation. On top of that, the scientific journals uploaded at Baylor's website only covers two of the five I cited.

Bardoc42 I just want to say, I strive to have your wit, backed up by credible intelligence, both emotional and academic. Fkn brilliant!

Originally posted by Astner
If you would've bothered to open one either one of the scientific journals uploaded at Baylor University's website you would've known that they were published by professors from the University of Texas Austin and the Pennsylvania State University respectively.

Now since these scientific studies support Christian ideas they're obviously going to be promoted by Christians. However that doesn't make them less rigorous.

That aside, even if they were published by professors at Baylor's your supposed dismissal of them would be an appeal to motivation. On top of that, the scientific journals uploaded at Baylor's website only covers two of the five I cited.

At the same time, ignoring the context of their studies and simply advocating their views because they were done by universities commits the appeal to authority fallacy. When an argument is biased, it is the job of the advocate to demonstrate that this bias did not affect how the study was conducted. In the case of the OP's original example, the. head researcher had some authority to be taken seriously but showed poor biased technique in addition to questionable motives behind the study.

Until the accuracy and objectivity of these studies you've provided are established, it's not unreasonable to be skeptical. For my own part I haven't finished reading through them yet.