Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/10/10996/

http://www.familystructurestudies.com/articles/


I gave up on wading through familystructurestudies.com/articles/ to find the real analysis. The first link seems biased.


Regardless, this changes my beliefs regarding lesbian marriages. My personal experience has been that long-term lesbian couples produced the most successful children (my sample pool was a whopping 2 samples deep).


Thoughts, criticisms, or arguments against this result?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless, this changes my beliefs regarding lesbian marriages.

Could you explain what you mean by this a little more?

Originally posted by BackFire
Could you explain what you mean by this a little more?


Did your question not get answered by this portion of my post?

Originally posted by dadudemon
My personal experience has been that long-term lesbian couples produced the most successful children (my sample pool was a whopping 2 samples deep).

Not really, as that was regarding lesbian parents, not specifically marriages. I thought perhaps you were hinting that you now believed lesbians should not be allowed to get married because of this study, which is why I asked for clarification.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not really, as that was regarding lesbian parents, not specifically marriages.

That would be a nitpick over a word which has no real meaning: we both live in the US and you know I live in Oklahoma.

I used "marriage" out of respect for the 2 couples I do know that cannot get married but wish to (being in Oklahoma kind of makes it impossible to get married).

They consider themselves married and I'll be damned if I let the law get in the way of two adults who are in love with each other. They refer to each other as "wife", so I will too.

Originally posted by BackFire
I thought perhaps you were hinting that you now believed lesbians should not be allowed to get married because of this study, which is why I asked for clarification.

I don't know how you could have gotten that out of my post, really. I think that's a pretty far stretch for interpretation on my words.

Gotcha. Was just curious was all, as obviously I had no way of knowing you were using the word 'marriage' in such a way, you understand. Thanks for clarifying, though.

As far as the studies specifically, though, I don't really care. Good parents can belong to any social/ethnic group, as can bad parents. Studies like this don't mean much to me.

Originally posted by BackFire
As far as the studies specifically, though, I don't really care. Good parents can belong to any social/ethnic group, as can bad parents. Studies like this don't mean much to me.

My complaint regarding this result is that it, at least partially, is measuring the social pressures such couples create for their children (by simply existing). To me, this is showing the result the prejudice and discrimination are still faced and it takes a toll on the children.


But that criticism does not fit well into the results of the study because it should show the same result for gay-men, as well: it doesn't (at least, the results show that the lesbian couples, in particular, are creating very statistically significant results). So, clearly, there is something else going on that is particular to lesbian couples and their children. I want to know more.



From my own personal experience, lesbian couples get less bullshit than the males. Obviously, that is anecdotal at best and completely opposite of reality, at worst. But if my experience is generally true, then shouldn't the male couples with children have poorer performing children?

Personally, I'm always very cynical when it comes to these studies, it seems like they are very often intentionally slanted and done by groups with a predetermined bias and prejudice so they can say "look, see gay marriage is bad, think of the children, ban it."

Obviously I can't say if that's true in this particular case, wouldn't surprise me, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
Personally, I'm always very cynical when it comes to these studies, it seems like they are very often intentionally slanted and done by groups with a predetermined bias and prejudice so they can say "look, see gay marriage is bad, think of the children, ban it."

Obviously I can't say if that's true in this particular case, wouldn't surprise me, though.

I didn't look through that entire website but it looks like male-male couples are better at producing successful children than single mothers. So it would appear that we should ban single-motherhood before male-male marriages!!!

Oh man, I'm going to get into trouble.

It's clearly just a problem with women. We should just ban motherhood in general. Their time has come and gone.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's clearly just a problem with women. We should just ban motherhood in general. Their time has come and gone.

And here BBC was telling us that the Y gene could go very soon

Lesbian couples with children represent such a fraction of any given group of people, even at a state level, so any failures that they have academically or successes would be magnified in percentage because the sample size is necessarily small. The other aspect is that a study may not account for all variables, which could include bullying from school peers, especially if the child's parents' sexual orientation is widely known. Single mothers had similar social integration issues and faced persecution and their children suffered years ago because of social exclusion, bullying, and even issues from staff who were judgmental or unsympathetic.

Also, I've seen studies that prove just the opposite; that same-sex couples are no more or less better at parenting successful children than anyone else, but I don't recall where this study took place or when.

Grain of salt.

This:

Originally posted by BackFire
Personally, I'm always very cynical when it comes to these studies,

And this:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And here BBC was telling us that the Y gene could go very soon

Lesbian couples with children represent such a fraction of any given group of people, even at a state level, so any failures that they have academically or successes would be magnified in percentage because the sample size is necessarily small. The other aspect is that a study may not account for all variables, which could include bullying from school peers, especially if the child's parents' sexual orientation is widely known. Single mothers had similar social integration issues and faced persecution and their children suffered years ago because of social exclusion, bullying, and even issues from staff who were judgmental or unsympathetic.

Also, I've seen studies that prove just the opposite; that same-sex couples are no more or less better at parenting successful children than anyone else, but I don't recall where this study took place or when.

Grain of salt.

Yeah I think Moose put it pretty much perfectly.

Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah I think Moose put it pretty much perfectly.

Quoted for rampant abuse in the future.

Royalty fees apply.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Quoted for rampant abuse in the future.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This is Confirmation Bias: The Study we're talking about here.

Your criticisms:

1. Sample size too small: false.

2. Confirmation bias: unsubstantiated and probably false.


In the lead researcher's own words:

"People will say I'm irresponsible without weighing in with stronger data," he said. "This is the best quality data we've seen so far. If they don't like the results, I'm sorry."


"There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study," Regnerus said. "People might say that's irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study," he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers."


His idea that collecting a sample that is representative of the population is a more apt comparison is closer to reality because we're not going to get the rare "same lesbian couple for all 18 years of the child's life" scenario, very often.



And this is what he said regarding the instability criticism: "People gay or straight should stick with their partners, he said. "I think the study provides evidence of that." I would note that these are not the words of someone that has confirmation bias in the manner you have accused.



And another researcher stated earlier (which I think was the motivation for Regnerus' research) "...burden of empirical proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents."





Lastly, he approached 4 pro-gay groups for funding for his research: all 4 of them declined. Why?


"When the NFSS was broadly outlined in late 2010, the Witherspoon Institute approached four different funding sources that were known to be committed to gay rights and also to have an interest in the welfare of children. They were asked to be partners by providing financial support to fund a study (the NFSS) with the proviso that none of the funding sources would have any influence regarding the design, implementation, or interpretation of the data. They were told the study would be conducted at a major research university and that the team of scholars involved in the design of the study would be evenly represented across ideological lines. All four declined."


Isn't that more telling of a "liberal research" slant than confirmation bias from Regnerus?

Lastly, don't you think that the critics could levy better criticisms other than ad hominems since he published his data and methods? He readily acknowledges the criticism that 'broken homes produce worse outcomes for children'.

But don't you think another group could quickly and easily disprove the notion that gay couples have worse outcomes by using his very own data against him?


"Sampling methods were flawed." False: it was a very large sample and it was a true random sample, unlike the other studies (minus one) that he called into question. Another researcher could go through his data and make their own conclusions.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Last I checked, Canada's population was approaching 35 million. That study hardly seems large enough to be all-encompassing,

Again, your sample-size criticism is a flawed criticism. It just doesn't apply. "Not large enough of a sample" just doesn't apply. You create a massive slippery slope with your criticism because then we must throw out all other studies regarding gay couples and child-outcomes because none of them, minus 1, even comes close to as large as Regnerus' attempt. On top of that, Regnerus' sampling methodology was more honest than most of the other studies because it was more random and representative of the population (in statistical collection, asking for respondents for a particular study has a bias. You just can't say, "Hey, I need you to answer questions about you children, I need you to be gay, and I'm researching how effective gay parents are": that will create a sampling bias that will screw up the results and that was one of Regnerus' criticisms of the preceding studies).

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
and the source seems very very suspect. I'd throw this one out.

The source seems solid, peer reviewed, and published. Methods seem solid, as well.

I'll hold onto this one and request more research, of this type and caliber, be conducted.

Serves the misandrists right.

Conclusion: men rule.

Just thought about something: we could be seeing this result because most lesbian couples that bring children to their relationship are coming from "heterosexual" relationships. They bring the children into that relationship.


So they are coming from broken homes, already. Then pile on the stigma of their mothers being lesbians and it should make more sense why the children would fare worse than even single mothers: the single mother doesn't have to deal with the social stigma of being gay like the lesbian mothers do.

^ What about a same-sex male couple? They have a smaller incidence of bringing in children from broken homes?

Seriously, I'm wondering if this study is inadvertently highlighting the contribution that men make in raising a child. In my line of work, I deal with single mothers all the time, and there often are problems when dad is not around, especially if mom is raising sons.

Maybe the female-factor impact is doubled in lesbian couples?

Just brainstorming here...

Originally posted by Mindship
^ What about a same-sex male couple? They have a smaller incidence of bringing in children from broken homes?

Oh yeah, big time. Gay males that come from heterosexual relationships that produced children are far less likely to be custodial fathers and less likely to actually visit their children than even their heterosexual counterparts.


Several citations, needed.


Originally posted by Mindship
Maybe the female-factor impact is doubled in lesbian couples?

Just brainstorming here...

That was one theory. They also theorized that, to beat the system, steady-relationship gay-fathers would create super kids. teehee

Originally posted by BackFire
Personally, I'm always very cynical when it comes to these studies, it seems like they are very often intentionally slanted and done by groups with a predetermined bias and prejudice so they can say "look, see gay marriage is bad, think of the children, ban it."

Obviously I can't say if that's true in this particular case, wouldn't surprise me, though.

I have to agree with BF here. I think conducting a study like this in a context where discrimination is already well and truly established is extremely difficult to do without some substantial error.

I think its inetersting that children from same sex families are more likely to be enrolled but less likely to finish. I wonder how much the drop out rate of these kids has to do with them leaving school to avoid bullying etc? Maybe a qualitative study shld be done on WHY they chose not to finish. I think that may shed an interesting light on a study which is otherwise purely quantitative amd offers little real insight.

Who would compare lesbians to the general population? The majority of children raised by same sex couples are adopted. The general population is an absurd false-equivalence. Adopted children, especially ones raised for the first years of their in poor quality Chinese orphanages, generally underperform their peers regardless of who raises them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who would compare lesbians to the general population? The majority of children raised by same sex couples are adopted. The general population is an absurd false-equivalence. Adopted children, especially ones raised for the first years of their in poor quality Chinese orphanages, generally underperform their peers regardless of who raises them.

Originally posted by Kostabot
I have to agree with BF here. I think conducting a study like this in a context where discrimination is already well and truly established is extremely difficult to do without some substantial error.

I think its inetersting that children from same sex families are more likely to be enrolled but less likely to finish. I wonder how much the drop out rate of these kids has to do with them leaving school to avoid bullying etc? Maybe a qualitative study shld be done on WHY they chose not to finish. I think that may shed an interesting light on a study which is otherwise purely quantitative amd offers little real insight.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The sample size goes into the base population about 11k times. It's a small sample when it attempts to create an establishment based on the overall population. I realize sampling everyone is expensive and unlikely from that standpoint, but this is less than 3k people and not all of them come from same-sex households. It's also funded by a conservative think-tank that is explicitly against same-sex marriage. I wouldn't trust this any more than I was trust a "reliable third party sample" posted on Verizon's website to taut their new coverage map (which somehow covers 96% of Americans but leaves whole swaths of the nation uncovered).

While this may not be the end-all of the issue here, it is still being interpreted to be meaningful in a greater context with an arguably small sample. My graduating class in a small city was about 1k. This sample is being compared to a greater population which is nearly 12k times as large, and again not all of the sampled adults were targets of the study, but used as comparison.the moon.

The sample was not only collected properly, it was very large and constitutes some of the best sampling and size requirements as set by APA.

It is not something that can be argued regarding this study unless you plan on taking down APA.

You can bust the lead researcher's balls and the financing institute's motives but not the sampling methods and the sample size.

Like I said before, if you want to use that same data to come up with your own numbers, pay for the article and content of the results. You don't even have to conduct your own study. However, I doubt you would get different results because it has already been peer reviewed and published.




The issue, and part of the reason why he decided to tackle this issue, is the criticisms you are leveling regarding sample size and collection methodology are the problems with the previous studies.

Person 1: "This glass is too small to fit a liter of water. We need to design a new glass that is not only sturdier but is large enough to hold all the water."

*Creates glass that meets those specifications*

Person 2: "That glass is too small and is not sturdy enough to hold 1 liter of water."





If you go through my posts, you'll see that I advocated more rights for gay couples, regarding children, because I was familiar with the years of research that showed heterosexual and homosexual couples to be comparable (and the homosexual couple were even better in some areas). Once I familiarized myself with the criticisms with the previous studies and then familiarized myself with this one, I see why I might have been mislead in the past.


This does not mean that I no longer support homosexual couples having children, adopting, etc. I still do. For me, this research indicates homosexual couples will need to be slightly more vigilant than their heterosexual counterparts when it comes to their children. One of the issues this study noted was that lesbian mothers had more partners (meaning, they changed partners more often than their heterosexual counterparts). This is part of the problem and raising children, successfully, requires a stable home environment (previous research has shown this).



Pretend for instance that all the criticisms about the study are true (within reason). Then at worst, this study shows that unstable homes create problems for children: homosexual or heterosexual. Now imagine that the results are at least statistically significant (but not as marked as the results show); then that should indicate that homosexual parents need to be even more careful than their heterosexual counterparts.



I think this study is the first of many studies that are going to open the door for more honest research. I like that. I don't want volunteer studies who are funded from biased resources that have control over the conditions of the studies (a criticism of prior studies in this particular area). I would definitely like long-term, unbiased, well-designed, large samples.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who would compare lesbians to the general population?

It wasn't to the general population: it was to hetersexual couples, single mothers, and single-fathers.

But a person that would compare them would be a person wanting to get a comparison between lesbian mothers and "not lesbian mothers." That's a reasonable comparison if that's what you want to compare.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The majority of children raised by same sex couples are adopted.

I believe that's false:

"The majority of these children were born while their biological parents were still in heterosexual marriages and then one parent subsequently came out as gay or lesbian."

Also, as is the case of one of my gal pals:

"An increasing number of lesbians, however, are using donor insemination to conceive biological children..."

Her daughter is now 16 (for any lesbians out there reading my post, it is very safe and it is effective! If you want children, you can adopt or actually have your own children)!!!

http://www.education.com/reference/article/families-lesbian-gay-parents/




edit - I would also note that the study revealed many differences (it said 24 out of 40), not just 1 or 2. Lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting (duh).
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance.
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time.
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed.
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting.
Are 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will.
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others.
Use marijuana more frequently.
Smoke more frequently.
Watch TV for long periods more frequently.
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense.


It's pretty sad that I had to go to an extremely biased website to find a breakdown of just some of those 24 areas.


Edit 2 - I would like to see another study done that uses some of the sampling methodologies from this study applied to a European country that has had homosexual marriage and homosexual acceptance for quite a while. I wonder what the differences would be? I bet you some of the differences this guy found would not be as stark or would even disappear (meaning, the results would indicate that broken homes are bad, stable relationships between custodial parents are good regardless of sexual orientation).

Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

Originally posted by Astner
Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

Yeah, that might be why they regularly practiced this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Art_gr%C3%A8cia.jpg

What a better way for a child to develop than by being sexually used by his mentor? Or in the case of the Spartans, separated from women so much that homosexuality actually becomes an institutional problem?

Are you illiterate?

Originally posted by Astner
Are you illiterate?

Is that a valid question given my obvious ability to formulate words and sentences by virtue of comprehension and infinite generativity?

The ancient Greeks practiced things that are considered sexual abuse in this day and age, whether you're all on the hetero nuclear family train or not. I figured if you wanted to offer your opinion you could also accept some acknowledgement of that opinion with you know, facts.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Is that a valid question given my obvious ability to formulate words and sentences by virtue of comprehension and infinite generativity?

The ancient Greeks practiced things that are considered sexual abuse in this day and age, whether you're all on the hetero nuclear family train or not. I figured if you wanted to offer your opinion you could also accept some acknowledgement of that opinion with you know, facts.

Don't make the bar tooooooo high.

Originally posted by Astner
Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

You are likely being sarcastic, but just saying, that's obviously not true, not even the study cited here supports anything even close to that claim.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't make the bar tooooooo high.

http://humanprovince.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/lowering-the-bar.jpg

*Clap*

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
The ancient Greeks practiced things that are considered sexual abuse in this day and age,
Which has nothing to do with growing up with a father- and a mother figure.

Is that a scarecrow?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is that a scarecrow?
I'm not sure what his point was, I took it as an appeal to emotion.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm not sure what his point was, I took it as an appeal to emotion.

I never appeal to emotion.

Originally posted by Astner
Which has nothing to do with growing up with a father- and a mother figure.

Sure it does. Your post implied that mother-father nuclear families are essential and it's so axiomatic even the ancient Greeks knew it. And while they did recognize a family structure, they also practiced sexual abuse which has damaging effects on child development. Sexually abused children struggle in schools if they are not able to cope with what's happening to them, especially when it's ignored or advocated by parents or social institutions.

As for the Spartans, due to their classification as both "ancient Greek" and "warrior culture", their men grew up separate from the women and only intermingled to procreate; otherwise, the men stayed together and formed strong emotional bonds and it is stated that they often became attracted to each other, to the point that many Spartan wives had to dress like men and have sex from behind to conceive.

So because your point implied the ancient Greeks had a handle on the evident truth, I felt the need to make sure you understood just what else the ancient Greeks did. They also practiced slavery and women had almost no rights compared to Canada, where the study took place, or obvious modern first world country parallels.

Stealth Moose affirming his stupidity by continuing pressing the appeal to emotion fallacy even after it has been exposed.

Originally posted by Astner
Stealth Moose affirming his stupidity by continuing pressing the appeal to emotion fallacy even after it has been exposed.

Again another straw-man.

Originally posted by Astner
Stealth Moose affirming his stupidity by continuing pressing the appeal to emotion fallacy even after it has been exposed.

http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ad-hominem-attacks.jpg

When you can "prove" your point without attacking me personally, come back to the adults' table.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again another straw-man.
No, it's not.

A straw man is the refutation (or attempt thereof) of a misrepresentation of your oppositions position.

I didn't bother tackling his position because it was fallacious.

Now stop wasting my time with your ignorance.

Originally posted by Astner
No, it's not.

A straw man is the refutation (or attempt thereof) of a misrepresentation of your oppositions position.

I didn't bother tackling his position because it was fallacious.

Now stop wasting my time with your ignorance.

Your pseudo-intelligence is fascinating. Usually by 24, people have some kind of self-awareness and post-formal thinking. What cave were you raised in?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
When you can "prove" your point without attacking me personally, come back to the adults' table.
Prove what exactly?

And that wasn't an ad hominem, it was an insult, learn the difference.

Originally posted by Astner
No, it's not.

A straw man is the refutation (or attempt thereof) of a misrepresentation of your oppositions position.

I didn't bother tackling his position because it was fallacious.

Now stop wasting my time with your ignorance.

Are you stating a corn farm?

Originally posted by Astner
Prove what exactly?

And that wasn't an ad hominem, it was an insult, learn the difference.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bnmlMQbGZGo/UOgYjxy-o4I/AAAAAAAAExI/GP1Q5vPkmAs/s1600/kirk-rofl.gif

Thank you for proving my point.

Originally posted by Astner
Thank you for proving my point.

Your obtuseness is derailing the thread. Unless you have something to contribute besides hot air and a lack of education, please vacate back to your dimension where ad hominems and insults are unrelated to each other.

He was the one questioning my education. I just thought I'd take his ass back down to Earth.

Originally posted by Astner
He was the one questioning my education. I just thought I'd take his ass back down to Earth.

Don't care, love video!

Originally posted by Astner
He was the one questioning my education. I just thought I'd take his ass back down to Earth.

I think you are alone in the opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are alone in the opinion.
I'll add that to my I don't give a shit-list.

Originally posted by Astner
I'll add that to my I don't give a shit-list.

Post list, plz. In order of how little shit you give.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Your obtuseness is derailing the thread. That's okay by me.

Have at it, mang.


Also, Astner's point about stable Male-Female relationships producing excellent environments in which to raise kids should be obvious. Of course that's going to be the best case scenario. Anyone who argues against that is, as others said, obtuse.




What can be argued, for or against, is if other types of relationships can be as good or not be as good as the "gold standard."

Here is an example of "other type of relationship": lesbian couples. The study in the OP indicates that that is not as good as the "gold standard" and in some ways, is worse than just being a single-mother. There are problems with that study because it may have just shown us what we already know: broken homes produce bad children and sexuality has little to nothing to do with it. But if the findings in the study are sound, it shows us that the burden is even worse on children in "other types of relationship" homes.

What also can, and should, be argued is in how far the "gold standard", as you put it, is one that is based on society's favouring of said standard. One argument that is often raised is that children with a homosexual couple as parents could be more prone to being bullied. If that is the case that could definitely have a negative impact on the groups graduation rate. That would then not be the fault of the "unconventional" relationship's abilities to raise successful children, but rather a sign of the hardship that this heteronormative thinking puts on these families.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But if the findings in the study are sound, it shows us that the burden is even worse on children in "other types of relationship" homes. Perhaps relative to the social environment. If we were a society truly accepting of homosexuality, would the results of this study have been different?

Damn, where's parallel-universe vision when ya need it.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps relative to the social environment. If we were a society truly accepting of homosexuality, would the results of this study have been different?

Damn, where's parallel-universe vision when ya need it.

Ha, I raised this point before you, therefore I am better than you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ha, I raised this point before you, therefore I am better than you. Serves me right for not reading every, single, goddamn post.

I believe we've done this dance before, some years back, when I didn't read threads and repeated what you already said.

Damn relapse.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps relative to the social environment. If we were a society truly accepting of homosexuality, would the results of this study have been different?

That was a theory I posted, earlier........

Originally posted by dadudemon
My complaint regarding this result is that it, at least partially, is measuring the social pressures such couples create for their children (by simply existing). To me, this is showing the result the prejudice and discrimination are still faced and it takes a toll on the children.

Makes sense that that would be the outcome.

The Regenerus Fallout

Originally posted by Astner
How about posting a few more macros to highlight the hypocrisy further?

You do realize what a macro is, right? Memes, images, and words are not the same thing. I also did some debating in our discussion, which might be an unfamiliar concept to you. See, debating involves actually using reason and arguments to get your point across, while just throwing your opinion out there and then attacking anyone who doesn't fawn all over it is known as being an ass.

You made this claim:

Originally posted by Astner
Right, a child needs both a father- and a mother figure in their life in order to psychologically grow up right. Even the ancient Greeks knew this.

You did not substantiate it. Instead, you chose to engage in me with ridiculous ad hominems and avoided my argument in favor of trying to belittle me. Thankfully I'm not threatened by your amateur hour behavior, but I am still going to call you out on it.



Yeah, and I'm the heir of gods:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/bpi-images/0c59ffc31dc72d728c5904268d9f847d.jpg

On the internet, you can be a level 66 Orc Barbarian, a male school teacher who loves furries, or a NASA badass with a degree of theoretical physics (which I hear is like theoretically making physics up). Considering you carry yourself like a knuckle-dragging troll and you can't so much as illustrate your point, I'm disinclined to think you are a product of higher reasoning, much less higher education.

Again, your point was re-quoted above, and you never substantiated it, but instead focused on me because I challenged your e-thority.



We were having a debate here into which you wandered in and offered your opinion as though it was informed. I then educated you and you responded with not counter arguments but personal attacks, which are ad hominems. In case your many degrees prohibit you from reading basic English:

http://karinhowe.com/home/_media/courses/121/spring12/4550001017_4b6bb02d83_z.jpg

Hopefully that was simple enough for you. Or maybe you will pull the "I don't give a shit" card while attacking me further. Yeah, probably that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's okay by me.

Have at it, mang.


Also, Astner's point about stable Male-Female relationships producing excellent environments in which to raise kids should be obvious. Of course that's going to be the best case scenario. Anyone who argues against that is, as others said, obtuse.


1. I see that because he favors your argument, he's allowed to derail and be a troll. Awesome.

2. Astner doesn't have a point, he just agreed with your point. He can't even take the time out of his no doubt busy day running Science itself to substantiate his point beyond "he has it" and "are you illiterate?"

Adam has a great point here and this should not be dismissed out of hand because of personal confirmation bias:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Regenerus Fallout

How many studies on the same subject have you covered that aren't themselves pet projects of anti-same-sex marriage groups?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
but instead focused on me because I challenged your e-thority. I don't know why I've never thought of it before, that word is wonderful. I'm gonna have to co-opt it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't know why I've never thought of it before, that word is wonderful. I'm gonna have to co-opt it.

Bless you, child. Go forth and spread the Word.

Astner, please refrain from insulting members on this forum. You've been warned/banned for this before.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, Astner's point about stable Male-Female relationships producing excellent environments in which to raise kids should be obvious. Of course that's going to be the best case scenario. Anyone who argues against that is, as others said, obtuse.

I would 100% argue against that.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I would 100% argue against that. RBMdsSwNZ9M

Hell yeah I'll do it. You get the room ready baby, I'll do it all night. :winku:

It's the 'u' at the end of wink that's gay about your post. Nothing else.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
1. I see that because he favors your argument, he's allowed to derail and be a troll. Awesome.

I told YOU to have at it.

Don't go "psycho rage-face" on me, now. Calm your t*ts and think clearly.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
2. Astner doesn't have a point, he just agreed with your point..

That's not correct. He made that point. I agreed with it. I also added more to his point. Important stuff.

1. I'm not psycho-mad, so this is a lame kind of misdirection. Stay on focus. I let Astner have it because he is deliberately bashing in an attempt to hide the fact that he can't defend the issue whatsoever. If he really had a monopoly on the truth, he had all day to come forward instead of being an internet tough guy.

2. No, he agreed with your "point" which is the foregone conclusion of this biased and controversial study. You've deftly ignored my challenge to find comparable studies that say the same thing that don't both suffer from methodology flaws and researcher bias. This basically tells me that your intent to discuss here is dishonest because you just want to reaffirm what you already beleive.

Why should we consider this "conclusion" relevant or worthy of discussion? It's not repeated, the source is tainted, and it's clearly a political maneuever to stop same-sex marriage in the U.S. because some people can't keep their religious beliefs to themselves. Walks like a duck, etc.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
1. I'm not psycho-mad, so this is a lame kind of misdirection.

Bla bla bla bla


You posted "psycho crazy shit". Somehow, some way, me telling you to have at with Astner because "OP doesn't give a shit", you said, "I see that because he favors your argument, he's allowed to derail and be a troll."

Tell me that doesn't come off as "psycho crazy shit"...it seems like it to me. You're just looking for a fight by trying to invent problems.


Originally posted by Stealth Moose
2. No, he agreed with your "point"

No he didn't.

Go ahead, post that point of mine that he agreed with.

To be fair, being OP is a completely powerless position...

Originally posted by Bardock42
To be fair, being OP is a completely powerless position...

I disagree, of course.

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.

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:

To reiterate, it compares the set1 {single gay guardians, paired gay guardians} against the set {married straight guardians}. 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.

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.

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.
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

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?
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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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).

truth^^

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.
Actually, the contexts of the studies are irrelevant, only the research matters.

That said, I never advocated their views based on the premise that it was done by professors of respectable universities. What I did was point out that Adam_PoE not only presented fallacious arguments but on top of that was wrong in his initial assertion regarding the origins of the studies.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.
Not quite. The bias and its supposed influence has to be specified by the opposition. To say that it's biased and then ask for the advocate to prove you wrong is to shift the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
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.
Which in no way refutes the validity of the study. Once again, you're committing an appeal to motive fallacy.

I also believe that combination of fatherhood and motherhood is more beneficial to children in the long run in the context of their grooming, developing a perspective of ground realities of life and experience.

Originally posted by BackFire
But in this case they are biased.

Isn't every single researcher, though?

Originally posted by BackFire
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.

I agree and I even questioned it in the very first post in this thread.


Originally posted by BackFire
You vaguely mentioning an article that you thought was fair,

No, an author who wrote an article, not "an article." That was one among probably dozens that are clearly biased. That particular author seemed less biased than his peers on that site.

Originally posted by BackFire
without citing it specifically,

Why would I cite anything in this regard? Why do you care? Why do I care? I don't. Just thought it was interesting that, even in a sea of bullshit, sometimes, one of them can try to be honest.

I don't remember the article or have the link but it was the one where they compared homosexual demographics and what happened after the legalized civil unions in Vermont or something. In it, the author didn't use the 10% "homosexual" number to make his point (an often liberal number that people use): that would have greatly made his point that homosexuals are not monogamous compared to other orientations. Instead, he used the low-figure of 1.5% to show how many of the Vermont gay population actually got civil unions. If he would have used the 10% number, he could have made his point waaaay more potent. He didn't.

That's it. If you can find that article, cool. I have no intentions in reading any more of that website. Not to "faith out" on you or anything, but I got an evil vibe from that website. That site, to me, is full of hate and not something I don't want to go searching through, again.

Originally posted by BackFire
isn't meaningful evidence of anything.

I disagree, of course. One author out of dozens being honest in his or her approach regarding the numbers was impressive. It shows that at least one side can stop shit slinging and try to give the numbers an honest go.

Originally posted by BackFire
The fact that you're trying to compare actual scientists (calling them liberal is a lazy attempt to discredit them),

You've made a mistake, here, already. I compared liberal and conservative scientists. And to be clear, I think both sides have their extremely biased researchers and both sides have genuine researchers that do honest work (but I think those "good people" are extremely rare and even those really after truth, they still will show bias in their research as it is unavoidable).

Originally posted by BackFire
who by their very nature are people searching for objective truth,

I disagree, here. This statement supports what you say next, of course, but I just can't agree to this because almost all are politically motivated. As I said before, very few are just in it for "objective truth."

Originally posted by BackFire
who are conducting "research" to show something that they already believe and will slant it to meet their beliefs, is just silly.

Yeah, I think most of the studies done in the past were poorly done (that's been argued, as well) and were done by people looking to confirm what they already believe.

Maybe that's because they are looking to confirm their hypothesis before the research is even started? Imagine that: they are all finding what they hypothesize. That's why I'm a bit skeptical when it comes to this politically motivated research: it doesn't matter which side because they all seem to be finding what they set out to find.

However, I think we both agree that this conservative hate agenda that seeks to continue to suppress the rights of the homosexual population is morally wrong. How the hell is that "Christlike"? Hmm?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
In the case of the OP's original example, the. head researcher had some authority to be taken seriously...

I would also note that that guy kind of shot himself in the foot by "testifying" after his research was done, in cases to prevent gay marriage. I noticed he got progressively (no pun intended) worse and worse until he pretty much was fully advocating gay-right suppression. That's the sign of a downward spiral. A scientist shouldn't get that involved if they want to retain their scientific authority, imo.


However, I can easily see myself arguing against myself. For instance, what if he genuinely believes his results show that we should hold off on allowing homosexuals to raise children (that's a horrible notion, but bear with me)? Then should he not, as a responsible scientist, push for policy that supports his research results? Replace "homosexual parents" with "anthropogenic global warming" and you see why it might be appropriate to advocate less greenhouse gas emissions.


But, I am of the notion that social policy is different from industrial pollution policy. Two dudes having buttsex is not going to cause the icecaps to melt no matter how steamy their sex gets.


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I also believe that combination of fatherhood and motherhood is more beneficial to children in the long run in the context of their grooming, developing a perspective of ground realities of life and experience.

Well, that makes sense. I don't think you'll find a psychologist, who is worth anything, arguing that a "Stable Father and Mother" relationship is not the best place for a child to be reared.

The real question is: "Can homosexual parents do just as well as the gold stanard?"

My answer, after starting this thread and reading good arguments is, "Yeah, pretty much."

Glad I started this thread. Is that because I just wanted to see that study destroyed so I could reaffirm my beliefs? Yeah...probably.

I don't think every single researcher is biased, and would actually like to hear why you think that. I believe there are some - mostly legitimate and non-shit scientists (you may call them liberal scientsts or conservative scientists, but I'll just call them bad scientists, because they are trying to search for evidence of what they already believe, rather than let the research drive their beliefs) - who are actively searching for an objective truth.

Also I don't know why you decided to split one of my sentences and retort each individual portion, rather than the full thought. Perhaps because it made it easier to try and alter the context of what I said. To be clear, factually speaking, vaguely mentioning a hypothetical article from some unnamed author who is part of a group of proven bigots is worthless. It's like saying I met a nice member of the Klu Klux Klan, but I don't know who he is and can produce no evidence to back it up. If you want such a statement to have any merit in a logical sense, you must produce the actual article. Otherwise it's just a cute little conversation piece, and nothing more. If that's all you were interested in when you referenced the article, then that's fine. However, it's not evidence of anything unless you find the specific article.

But yes, definitely agree that the conservative hate agenda is shameful and disgusting. And The family research council is a part of that group, just to be clear.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

Will leave this here for those who may not know just how bigoted and disgusting a group they really are.

And this goes back to earlier in the thread to why I am inherently skeptical of every single one of these studies. Not only are they almost always a production of bias, but they're also utterly pointless. Say there is one study that somehow magically proves Homosexuals are actually more likely to be bad parents, then what? What is accomplished? They can't be banned from adopting or having children, so all a study like that would do is promote the idea that homosexuals are lesser than heterosexual in some way. It's not possible for these studies to serve a meaningful purpose other than inciting negative emotions towards one particular group. Most reasonable people know this and that's why the only groups that usually do these types of studies are ones with an anti homosexual agenda.

"Because, unlike me, you're able to pack a shit-ton of meaning into each of your phrases. "

Trade secret - I'm just really lazy, too lazy to expand on shit too much these days.

Look at how I quoted you, didn't even do the proper site quote, just shitty old quotes. So lazy.

Also, I never knew you were so cynical. I like it.

Well sure, in that sense it wouldn't be. I just mean in a practical sense, like, to what end would a study like that serve? What could be done as a result? Nothing.

Doesn't matter, won't ever happen.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well sure, in that sense it wouldn't be. I just mean in a practical sense, like, to what end would a study like that serve? What could be done as a result? Nothing.

Doesn't matter, won't ever happen.

Something can always be done as a result. I imagine a legit study would find causes, reasons, solutions, etc.

It's like when some people oppose deeper understanding of genetics because it, by off-chance, might reveal that blacks are more prone to violence or are less intelligent than whites(just an example). I think it's a shit reason.

No, you really couldn't do anything because any action would inherently be infringing on the rights of the affected group.

I guess what I'm trying to say - and forgive me if my points are a bit more muddled than they should be, had a bit to drink during Thanksgiving dinner - is that I'm not a fan of ANY study that separates people based on race or sexuality, especially when it comes to something like parenting.

There are overwhelming amounts of variables when it comes to raising a child, many that are completely outside of the parents' control, that I feel engaging in a study about such things is ultimately pointless because it attempts to simplify its findings into 'gay' and 'non gay' scenarios while likely ignoring all other variables that could cause a child to be seen as properly raised or not.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, you really couldn't do anything because any action would inherently be infringing on the rights of the affected group.

I guess what I'm trying to say - and forgive me if my points are a bit more muddled than they should be, had a bit to drink during Thanksgiving dinner - is that I'm not a fan of ANY study that separates people based on race or sexuality, especially when it comes to something like parenting.

There are an overwhelming amount of variables when it comes to raising a child, many that are completely outside of the parents' control, that I feel engaging in a study about such things is ultimately pointless because it attempts to simplify its findings into 'gay' and 'non gay' scenarios while likely ignoring all other variables that could cause a child to be seen as properly raised or not.

We already infringe on rights of certain groups based on our knowledge of them. Example: higher vehicle insurance rates for young males as opposed to just about everyone else. It's a textbook example of discrimination.

As far as parenting goes, I agree. It would be punishingly difficult to objectively assess whether homosexuals make for better or worse parents. But if such a study should emerge(I personally believe that it's highly unlikely to), we'd have to put on our big-boy pants on and accept it.

That's different, though. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Parenthood is a right, and so doing anything to alter that right for a particular group would be much different than higher insurance rates for young men.

And yeah, I never said such a study shouldn't be accepted, just that there's nothing of any practicality that could be done about it. Would just essentially have to go "Oh, Okay then", and move on.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's different, though. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Parenthood is a right, and so doing anything to alter that right for a particular group would be much different than higher insurance rates for young men.

And yeah, I never said such a study shouldn't be accepted, just that there's nothing of any practicality that could be done about it. Would just essentially have to go "Oh, Okay then", and move on.

If it were only so. Unfortunately, history has proven time and time again that there are no such things as rights, only privileges. Parenthood is a very widely accepted privilege, but it is a privilege nonetheless. Now I'm not saying that we should take away the privilege of parenthood because some study proved that a certain group might be not quite as good at it as another. I'm talking about making improvements and adjustments.

No offense, but your philosophical musings aren't very relevant to this discussion, despite the fact that there's merit to what you say. As it is right now, in every practical sense, it's a right and treated as a right, and so to this discussion that's how it must be approached, less we meet one hypothetical (which I probably shouldn't even have brought up) with another.

How do you 'adjust' parenthood for one group of people, though. I don't even know how that's possible.

Originally posted by BackFire
No offense, but your philosophical musings aren't very relevant to this discussion, despite the fact that there's merit to what you say. As it is right now, in every practical sense, it's a right and treated as a right, and so to this discussion that's how it must be approached, less we meet one hypothetical (which I probably shouldn't even have brought up) with another.

How do you 'adjust' parenthood for one group of people, though. I don't even know how that's possible.

I am trying to say that rights or privileges, or whatever you want to call them aren't static or inviolate.

Adoption, for example. Homosexuals can't have children biologically, so they must almost always adopt. I think we both know what the difference between adopting and having children the good ole fashioned way is. Say, how easy it would be for you to adopt a child right now? There would probably be quite a few candidates for adoption out there that are considered 'superior' to you. You see where I'm going with this?

Sure, but Homosexuals can have their own children in various ways. Maybe not by laying in bed with each other until the stork knocks on their window, like straight people have happen, but it can be done, and is done. Adoption isn't the only option for them.

And besides, adoption is also not a right, but having your own child is.

But if we're specifically talking about adoption and nothing else, then what you say makes some sense.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sure, but Homosexuals can have their own children in various ways. Maybe not by laying in bed with each other until the stork knocks on their window, like straight people have happen, but it can be done, and is done. Adoption isn't the only option for them.

And besides, adoption is also not a right, but having your own child is.

But if we're specifically talking about adoption and nothing else, then what you say makes some sense.

Yea, like surrogate mothers, but that's still more complicated than hetero boning and also not a 'right.'

But how, then? If you are biologically incapable?

Well, the most obvious being from a previous heterosexual relationship.

And using a surrogate is a right. Anyone can do it if they find a willing participant, just sometimes gets complicated because the surrogate can have a change of heart and yadda yadda.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, the most obvious being from a previous heterosexual relationship.

And using a surrogate is a right, sure. Anyone can do it if they find a willing participant, just gets complicated because the surrogate can have a change of heart and yadda yadda.

What if you never had a previous heterosexual relationship or don't want to have one because of sexual preferences? I'd imagine quite a few homosexuals would find it quite degrading to enter a relationship with someone they're not attracted to just to have children.

So if the surrogate has a change of heart or you just can't find a willing one? Oops, suddenly not so much of a 'right.'

EDIT: Clearly, the only solution is growing children in vats.

If they never had a previous relationship then obviously they won't have children before entering into the homosexual relationship. And if they don't want to do it then they don't do it. You're attempting to alter the discussion a bit, here. I never said each of these scenarios was ideal or flawless, only that they do exist.

No, even if the surrogate changes their mind it's still a right, just a conflicting right of another person can come into contact with it. A right doesn't mean there aren't possible repercussions or consequences for engaging in the act, just that legally no one will stop you from attempting it.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, it's still a right, just a conflicting right of another person can come into contact with it. A right doesn't mean there aren't possible repercussions or consequences for engaging in the act, just that legally no one will stop you from attempting it.

To me a right is something that's guaranteed. If it's not, well, you guessed it: it's a privilege.

I think I should clarify that going out to find a surrogate is obviously not forbidden, but the potential conflict arising from it prevents it from being reasonably guaranteed. Bring on the vat-grown children, I say.

Anyhow, it's time to go to bed for me.

Well, despite the fact that I question your definition of the word "right", I simply can't bring myself to disagree vehemently with someone who is supporting vat-grown babies. It's time.

Originally posted by BackFire
That's different, though. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Parenthood is a right,

That's where we differ: I think it should be a licensed and insured privilege.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
To me a right is something that's guaranteed. If it's not, well, you guessed it: it's a privilege.

You're defining an "inalienable right" which is different than a "right."

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's where we differ: I think it should be a licensed and insured privilege.



You're defining an "inalienable right" which is different than a "right."

That is certainly not a meritless idea.

You mean the kinds of "inalienable rights" that get alienated all the time?

Interesting, the stuff from "Social Science Research" most so. I tend to bristle at research that looks for correlations in large data sets (400 subjects is, let's be honest, a huge data set), but this is hardly a subject where a proper experiment would be ethical, if possible. I'll have to dig into the methods a bit more, however, I do tend to agree with both sides in this "debate". A great deal of the skepticism of this result seems to be rooted in the political position that lesbians deserve the same rights in terms of child rearing as do other couples, and as much as I agree with that, unless there is some major issue with the SSR research (and it might be reasonable to suggest this given some recent revelations in social science and social psychology research ) it seems there might be some truth to the claim that lesbian couples have children with less "success".

I've looked through the thread a bit, but might have missed it; is the data from the OP available as a peer reviewed document?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
That is certainly not a meritless idea.

You mean the kinds of "inalienable rights" that get alienated all the time?



We're looking at you, NSA.

Originally posted by tsilamini
I've looked through the thread a bit, but might have missed it; is the data from the OP available as a peer reviewed document?

You'll have to purchase it. I found a website and you can purchase it for like $35 or something.

I would love for someone else to go through the data and come up with their own results.


Here it is:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1200169X


Edit - Yes, 400 samples is more than enough.

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.

If you had bothered to read any of the articles that you posted links to, then you would know:

The first link is to an article by by Mark Regnerus who authored the study that is the subject of this thread.

The second link is to an article by Paul Amato who was a paid consultant on the study that is the subject of this thread.

The third link is to an article by Peter Sprigg who is a board member of an "ex-gay" advocacy group and is the Senior Fellow for Policy Studies of an anti-gay hate group.

The fourth link does not work.

The fifth link is to a qualitative study of the experiences, coping, and needs, of parents of severely disabled newborns.

Of the four working links, three are to articles, and the one link to a peer-reviewed scientific study has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Nice try.

I don't know about this study...i do know of a young girl who threatened to kill herself if she wasn't removed from her lesbian parents

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
I don't know about this study...i do know of a young girl who threatened to kill herself if she wasn't removed from her lesbian parents

Some bitches be cray and I don't believe it can be attributed to their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
I don't know about this study...i do know of a young girl who threatened to kill herself if she wasn't removed from her lesbian parents

What's the context? Were they abusive? Was she religious and adopted? Without context, this might as well be a newspaper headline.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you had bothered to read any of the articles that you posted links to, then you would know:

The first link is to an article by by Mark Regnerus who authored the study that is the subject of this thread.

The second link is to an article by Paul Amato who was a paid consultant on the study that is the subject of this thread.

The third link is to an article by Peter Sprigg who is a board member of an "ex-gay" advocacy group and is the Senior Fellow for Policy Studies of an anti-gay hate group.

The fourth link does not work.

The fifth link is to a qualitative study of the experiences, coping, and needs, of parents of severely disabled newborns.

Of the four working links, three are to articles, and the one link to a peer-reviewed scientific study has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Nice try.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mawazmNPQZ1qhq58jo1_500.gif

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mawazmNPQZ1qhq58jo1_500.gif Adam's clearly Thor, so you must be Cap'n.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Adam's clearly Thor, so you must be Cap'n.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m59velab8p1ry3qblo1_500.gif

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Adam's clearly Thor, so you must be Cap'n.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Captain+Murica_0bce03_4279102.jpg

Originally posted by Epicurus
This post is one of the most beautiful walls of text I've read on this site.

I couldn't find a humble bow gif worthy enough, but thank you.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I couldn't find a humble bow gif worthy enough, but thank you.

Oh Great! Now we will never hear the end of it.

More and more people feed my ego and by extention my power level.

Stealth, you're an idiot. Please stop posting.

A challenger appears.

Also, you never said when to stop posting, but works ends in nine minutes so you win for now.

Your wit is beyond me. Proceed.

Who cares?

Originally posted by Oneness
Who cares?

Thanks for bringing this to the table. The discussion is entirely better for it.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Thanks for bringing this to the table. The discussion is entirely better for it.
If Oneness's post was a pancake, then your post is syrup.

F*ck it, I'm making waffles.

Oddball.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Oddball.

Were your parents Lesbians?