Can we really trust modern studies on homosexuality and related issues?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hey everyone. Can we really trust modern studies on homosexuality and related issues? I mean, I have no idea how true it is but I have heard some claim that such studies are often sponsored by gay rights organizations. Would this sponsorship not make the study biased in such a way to where it is possibly questionable?

Also, how many studies have been done on the issue which were not funded by either a gay rights organization or a conservative organization which has opposite beliefs of a gay rights organization? Have there been any studies done which are truly unbiased and neutral?
 
Research is largely biased in the way that you state. Even researchers who claim to be neutral, are often biased. Want to know the results of a study, look at which way the pendulum is swinging in society as a whole, and makes your bets from there.
 
Research is largely biased in the way that you state. Even researchers who claim to be neutral, are often biased. Want to know the results of a study, look at which way the pendulum is swinging in society as a whole, and makes your bets from there.
Yup, the same is generally true for public opinion polls as well, unfortunately.
 
Hey everyone. Can we really trust modern studies on homosexuality and related issues? I mean, I have no idea how true it is but I have heard some claim that such studies are often sponsored by gay rights organizations. Would this sponsorship not make the study biased in such a way to where it is possibly questionable?

Also, how many studies have been done on the issue which were not funded by either a gay rights organization or a conservative organization which has opposite beliefs of a gay rights organization? Have there been any studies done which are truly unbiased and neutral?
Stick to solid Catholic sources, secular studies are biased. Linus2nd
 
Recently, someone posted facts about homosexuality that were from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) that showed problems with homosexual behavior. There is evidence that after years of studying homosexual persons, all that was thrown out in 1973 when the American Psychological Association, under pressure from gays in the APA and radical gay activists outside it, decided to remove homosexuality from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by vote. I no longer trust the APA to be unbiased. Other studies appear to be biased as well.

I only trust the Church to provide balanced information.

Peace.
Ed
 
I read an article about a psych prof in Holland who made up 55 studies :eek: His first study didn’t turn out well, so he made up some numbers. This turned out to be so much easier that he kept on doing it. His studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, and he was only caught because he was helping his grad students do tthe same, and one of them thought it wasn’t right.

And in articles about the Regnery studies, people pointed out that there were no bad effects on homosexual parenting because they didn’t think increased willingness to experent with homosexual activity was a bad thing 😦 So you have to be careful too about interpretation.

Plus, a lot of psych research just studies college students, who are easily available…

All this in addition to researcher bias!
 
Wow. Thanks for explaining things everyone. I appreciate it.

I do have a question though because I honestly have no idea what the answer is. When it comes to science, isn’t science supposed to be objective and unbiased? How then can people claim that these research studies are scientific if they really aren’t scientific due to them being biased?
 
Wow. Thanks for explaining things everyone. I appreciate it.

I do have a question though because I honestly have no idea what the answer is. When it comes to science, isn’t science supposed to be objective and unbiased? How then can people claim that these research studies are scientific if they really aren’t scientific due to them being biased?
Because science is performed by humans, and pretty much every human on the face of the earth who is over five hold biases. Sometimes, they are deliberately transferred into studies. Other times, it might be more subtle and insidious. I think it will be difficult to ever find a perfectly unbiased source, but it is prudent to be cautious about the stjdies with greater bias.
 
Wow. Thanks for explaining things everyone. I appreciate it.

I do have a question though because I honestly have no idea what the answer is. When it comes to science, isn’t science supposed to be objective and unbiased? How then can people claim that these research studies are scientific if they really aren’t scientific due to them being biased?
The thing is that the physical sciences are much easier to deal with, results are less easily manipulated and experiments more easily replicated.

Psych is known as a soft science for a reason: it is more difficult to quantify, interpretation is more necessary. For example, some people taught an ape to use Sign Language. The some deaf people watched and said, no, some of the hand movements are only vaguely like the word these people say it is, and it looks more like the ape has simply learned to make certain movements rather than learning a language.

But seeing what has been going on even in physical sciences, it’s hard for me to take some of it seriously!
 
Because science is performed by humans, and pretty much every human on the face of the earth who is over five hold biases. Sometimes, they are deliberately transferred into studies. Other times, it might be more subtle and insidious. I think it will be difficult to ever find a perfectly unbiased source, but it is prudent to be cautious about the stjdies with greater bias.
You are right. Like for example if a research study received a lot of funding from PFLAG (Parents and Friend of Lesbians and Gays) then I would reject the study because to me, that would be a strong indicator of bias since this organization supports such things as “gay marriage”.
The thing is that the physical sciences are much easier to deal with, results are less easily manipulated and experiments more easily replicated.

Psych is known as a soft science for a reason: it is more difficult to quantify, interpretation is more necessary. For example, some people taught an ape to use Sign Language. The some deaf people watched and said, no, some of the hand movements are only vaguely like the word these people say it is, and it looks more like the ape has simply learned to make certain movements rather than learning a language.

But seeing what has been going on even in physical sciences, it’s hard for me to take some of it seriously!
I completely agree with you especially when it comes to psychiatric science. As for physical science I am not sure if I agree or not. Could you please explain why you have a hard time taking seriously studies in physical sciences?
 
You are right. Like for example if a research study received a lot of funding from PFLAG (Parents and Friend of Lesbians and Gays) then I would reject the study because to me, that would be a strong indicator of bias since this organization supports such things as “gay marriage”.

I completely agree with you especially when it comes to psychiatric science. As for physical science I am not sure if I agree or not. Could you please explain why you have a hard time taking seriously studies in physical sciences?
Reading a study requires a method for reading. Too many, not versed in reading, studying literature, and understanding literature…read this stuff and look at something that agrees with their point of view and then point this out to prove their point.

I read the introduction, then I read the Conclusion. I then go back and read the introduction, read through the discussion and the Conclusion again. I look at the references and then I read through again and look at method.

I am skeptical from the get go looking for generalizations, things that don’t ring true and when I don’t find them, then I look at the article and start trusting what it says and register against what I already know.

Much of what is called science in behavior is observation, surveys, case studies, and much of it is subjective. Too often, those that know little, ask for…as you may see, when confronted with something they don’t agree with…Prove it!!!..how you ask…

Double blind studies…that really make no sense in this arena…when you see someone suggesting this, they probably have no idea what they are talking about…
 
Reading a study requires a method for reading. Too many, not versed in reading, studying literature, and understanding literature…read this stuff and look at something that agrees with their point of view and then point this out to prove their point.

I read the introduction, then I read the Conclusion. I then go back and read the introduction, read through the discussion and the Conclusion again. I look at the references and then I read through again and look at method.

I am skeptical from the get go looking for generalizations, things that don’t ring true and when I don’t find them, then I look at the article and start trusting what it says and register against what I already know.

Much of what is called science in behavior is observation, surveys, case studies, and much of it is subjective. Too often, those that know little, ask for…as you may see, when confronted with something they don’t agree with…Prove it!!!..how you ask…

Double blind studies…that really make no sense in this arena…when you see someone suggesting this, they probably have no idea what they are talking about…
Thank you for commenting CopticChristian. I imagine that you are much more qualified to read and understand these studies than I am.
 
I think it is, for example take the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study of 78 respondents who are recruited, ‘at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers.’

NLLFS participant mothers are asked to report themselves on how their children are developing. This is open to ‘social desirability bias.’ When you look into the statistics for participants of the NLLFS there is question over its representativeness of the lesbian population; majority when they began participation in the study were in mid 30s; 82% had management or professional job positions; upper and middle class accounted for 82%; college educated 67%; 94% Caucasian. NLLFS is funded by Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay Lesbian Medical Association; The Gill Foundation (funder of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender causes) The Arcus Foundation (‘Gives funding guidelines and describes current programs. Focus areas include tolerance, gay and lesbian issues, and great apes’), Roy Scrivner Fund (…encourages the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family psychology and LGBT family therapy…), and Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law (think tank for research on ‘gender identity law’ and ‘sexual orientation’).

This survey is used by the mainstream media and homosexual adoption and marriage advocates to show that children have good outcomes when brought up in a home with lesbian parents, yet consider all of the above in how the study is funded and the number and representativeness of the respondents.
 
National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study of 78 respondents are recruited, ‘at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers.’

NLLFS participant mothers are asked to report themselves on how their children are developing. This is open to ‘social desirability bias.’ When you look into the statistics for participants of the NLLFS there is question over its representativeness of the lesbian population; majority when they began participation in the study were in mid 30s; 82% had management or professional job positions; upper and middle class accounted for 82%; college educated 67%; 94% Caucasian. NLLFS is funded by Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay Lesbian Medical Association; The Gill Foundation (funder of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender causes) The Arcus Foundation (‘Gives funding guidelines and describes current programs. Focus areas include tolerance, gay and lesbian issues, and great apes’), Roy Scrivner Fund (…encourages the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) family psychology and LGBT family therapy…), and Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law (think tank for research on ‘gender identity law’ and ‘sexual orientation’).

NLFFS said in 2010 that children raised by lesbian parents do better on social and academic tests than their peers. This survey is used by the mainstream media and homosexual adoption and marriage advocates to show that children have good outcomes when brought up in a home with lesbian parents, yet consider all of the above in who the study is funded by and the number and representativeness of the respondents and it should lead you to doubt the conclusion of the study but does the mainstream question the funding sources or the sample for this study? Hardly.
 
Thank you for commenting CopticChristian. I imagine that you are much more qualified to read and understand these studies than I am.
What is important is that everyone can read…I had to read this stuff weekly, reflect on it, is it important, not important, or just someone trying to get published…useful, not useful…balooney…and what most people don’t have is…

Colleagues that you can discuss what you read and put what you read in perspective…

Too often someone reads something, clings to it…not knowing if it is any of the above.
 
What is important is that everyone can read…I had to read this stuff weekly, reflect on it, is it important, not important, or just someone trying to get published…useful, not useful…balooney…and what most people don’t have is…

Colleagues that you can discuss what you read and put what you read in perspective…

Too often someone reads something, clings to it…not knowing if it is any of the above.
There are people who don’t have others to discuss such things with, but you can do your own research. Really. Too many have been conditioned to fall into a receptive state and allow themselves to be mentally spoon-fed. That has to stop regarding important issues like this.

I do know a few very intelligent people who have fallen into the conditioning trap. We still get along but we are divided on some issues which actual research shows is not what the media or even studies tells us is true.

There is a spectrum of responses and they’re based on conditioning. They can range from “I don’t care” to “Why should I care” or “Someone important said this was OK and they’re an expert so it must be true.”

And we can ask each other here, right?

Peace,
Ed
 
What is important is that everyone can read…I had to read this stuff weekly, reflect on it, is it important, not important, or just someone trying to get published…useful, not useful…balooney…and what most people don’t have is…

Colleagues that you can discuss what you read and put what you read in perspective…

Too often someone reads something, clings to it…not knowing if it is any of the above.
Let me ask you a question to see if I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that some people draw certain conclusions from research studies which may or may not be what the actual conclusions were? Sorry for the miscommunication if there was any.
 
Let me ask you a question to see if I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that some people draw certain conclusions from research studies which may or may not be what the actual conclusions were? Sorry for the miscommunication if there was any.
No, you have to read the conclusion to look for words like…

“this may mean…”

“based on these findings further studies should be directed…”

“We believe that this…”

rather than this…

“This study confirms…”

“This study is conclusive for…”

You also have to look for what the introduction says as to what it is the purpose is and if it makes sense to what you know and what is known. Many of the articles that are provided by the brain scan/homosexual crowd proving that brains are different are typical of reading into something that is not there. Most don’t know what can and cannot be done with Nuclear medicine and what specificity is and sensitivity is as it regards these studies.

anyone that brings some journal article as proof of something, not having read the conclusion is reading into support for thier point of view and not trying to truly understand transfer of information and knowledge…

Ok…
 
Although it’s easy for a study to be biased as in when it’s sponsored by the “gay” activists, there are ways to counter biases such as how I did with the following:

The intention of this post is to show fast facts and to do so using quotes from left-leaning authoritative sources so as not to be accused of having data that is skewed to the right. The quotes speak for themselves since they all say the same thing which is that actively “gay” and bisexual men are by far at highest risk for HIV/AIDS. This is news to those who want to teach homosexual behavior in schools as the “new normal” calling it “marriage”. Using these statistical facts from these authoritative sources who we can be sure are not biased against “gays”, we can raise people’s awareness of the high risks and dangers of living an active homosexual life.

Fast Facts about AIDS

“Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States .” - CDC

“Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV.” – CDC

“From 2008 to 2010, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 20%.” – CDC

“Fighting HIV among African Americans is not mutually exclusive with fighting HIV among gay and bisexual men. Efforts to reduce HIV among Blacks must confront the epidemic among Black gay and bisexual men as forcefully as existing efforts to confront the epidemic among other groups.” - Obama

“Roughly three-fourths of HIV/AIDS cases in the United States are among men, the majority of whom are gay and bisexual men.” - Obama

“Gay and bisexual men have comprised the largest proportion of the HIV epidemic in the United States since the first cases were reported in the 1980s, and that has not changed. They still comprise the greatest proportion of infections nationally.” - Obama

“CDC reports that HIV diagnoses among young gay men (ages 13-24) of all races and ethnicities rose between 2001 and 2006.” – Obama

Objection:
“But that’s not fact with AIDS/HIV worldwide where most of the cases are heterosexual.”

Answer :
That’s ignoring the proportions. There are more heterosexuals with AIDS because there are more heterosexuals. Homosexuals only make up about 2% of the population. One of the primary ways AIDS got into the heterosexual population is because of bisexual men. According to the CDC and President Obama…

“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections” – CDC

“Given the starkness and the enduring nature of the disparate impact on gay and bisexual men, it is important to significantly reprioritize resources and attention on this community. The United States cannot reduce the number of HIV infections nationally without better addressing HIV among gay and bisexual men…Even though gay and bisexual men comprise only two percent of the U.S. population (4 percent of men)” – Obama (bold emphasis given in Obama’s 2010 Whitehouse report)

“Disparities in HIV infection also exist between gay and bisexual men and heterosexual populations. Recently, the CDC announced that gay and bisexual men in the United States are 44 to 86 times more likely to become infected with HIV than heterosexual men, and 40 to 77 times more likely to become infected than women.” – Obama

“Gay and bisexual men comprise the majority of people with HIV who have died in the United States.” - Obama

“1 in 5 Gay/Bi Men Have HIV, Nearly Half Don’t Know” - WebMD

Objection: “But aren’t they were born that way?”

Answer: There’s no such thing as a “gay gene”.

Unlike being able to know what race a baby is, there’s no way to look at a room full of babies and say that any of them are “gay”. Also, people who are born “intersex” are extremely rare and are typically asexual. So they should not even be in the same category as homosexual.

Except for the possibility of a hormonal imbalance, studies suggest it’s more likely caused by social factors such as a sexual or emotional trauma that influenced them to believe they are homosexual. For example, a baby gets molested, and no one in the family ever finds out. Later, the kid starts to think he’s “gay” but doesn’t make the connection to this repressed memory. Most people will admit that they can’t remember anything earlier than 2 or 3 years old.

“In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.” - California School of Professional Psychology

Sources:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
President Obama’s National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the the the United States 2010 White House Report
WebMD
California School of Professional Psychology
 
No, you have to read the conclusion to look for words like…

“this may mean…”

“based on these findings further studies should be directed…”

“We believe that this…”

rather than this…

“This study confirms…”

“This study is conclusive for…”

You also have to look for what the introduction says as to what it is the purpose is and if it makes sense to what you know and what is known. Many of the articles that are provided by the brain scan/homosexual crowd proving that brains are different are typical of reading into something that is not there. Most don’t know what can and cannot be done with Nuclear medicine and what specificity is and sensitivity is as it regards these studies.

anyone that brings some journal article as proof of something, not having read the conclusion is reading into support for thier point of view and not trying to truly understand transfer of information and knowledge…

Ok…
Well done. Scientific studies need to use specific terminology, like confirms, suggests, implies, we believe, our conclusion. To say that psychology is a “soft science” is false. Where do gay activists get their expert witnesses in court cases? From the community of psychologists/psychiatrists who have been published and specialize in certain behaviors. And they must be able to cite a sufficient number of peer-reviewed studies to convince a judge and, sometimes, a jury or group of policymakers that their conclusions are based on firm ground.

However, bias must be ruled out. In a few areas where I have some knowledge, you can get two experts to come to different conclusions about the same subject. Sadly, there are people out there who are experts with degrees who can “prove” that certain behaviors are good.

Different people in different professions use certain parts of their brain most of the time. So, should we compare brain scans of basketball players with artists?

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top