Study confirmed as valid: Homosexual unions are bad for kids

  • Thread starter Thread starter French_Catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a link to the study:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Just looking over it I can find some SERIOUS problems with the study’s conclusions. 17% of the families raised by biological were on welfare growing up as opposed to 69% with a lesbian mother and 57% with a gay father. Hmmm, maybe there were some confounding factors that attributed the welfare of the children that didn’t have to do with the sexuality of the parents.
 
interestedman said:
That doesn’t mean the study isn’t complete garbage. I haven’t looked at the study myself but just because the behavior didn’t rise to the level of scientific misconduct it doesn’t mean it is legit.
Click to expand...
It might be complete garbage - but so might previous research in this area in light of the sampling issues.
 
interestedman said:
Here is a link to the study:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Just looking over it I can find some SERIOUS problems with the study’s conclusions. 17% of the families raised by biological were on welfare growing up as opposed to 69% with a lesbian mother and 57% with a gay father. Hmmm, maybe there were some confounding factors that attributed the welfare of the children that didn’t have to do with the sexuality of the parents.
Click to expand...
These are issues that should be debated in academia, and yet you seem to have already reached a conclusion. I’m guessing you are not open to scientific discoveries, and only agree with research that confirms your own opinions…?
 
stewstew03 said:
These are issues that should be debated in academia, and yet you seem to have already reached a conclusion. I’m guessing you are not open to scientific discoveries, and only agree with research that confirms your own opinions…?
Click to expand...
All I am saying is that the paper suggests that one variable (homosexuality of parents) has a large effect on children. The fact that there was a HUGE gap between families with gay parents and families with non divorced biological parents in terms of financial stability could help explain the disparity. IF the study wanted to academically honest they would have tried to control for the financial disparity and other variables to see if the observation that children with homosexual parents were worse off.

Issues that should be debated in academia? The fact that the study is completely one sided and didn’t try to adjust for other variables because that would likely ruin the “conclusions” of the study? The fact that a complete amateur like myself looked at the study for 10 minutes and found SERIOUS problems that anyone that was being academically honest would have addressed shows how this study is extremely one sided. Or do you not think that being on welfare might effect a child negatively?

Why didn’t the author compare families with similar financial situations? Hmmm, maybe it is because if he did that the conclusions would have been different from what he wanted (or should I say the people that put up the money for the study wanted.)

The study might not have been guilty of “academic misconduct” but it was certainly done very poorly and in a biased manner to get the desired results.
 
interestedman said:
That doesn’t mean the study isn’t complete garbage. I haven’t looked at the study myself but just because the behavior didn’t rise to the level of scientific misconduct it doesn’t mean it is legit.
Click to expand...
If by “garbage” you mean “saying something you would rather not hear,” then perhaps so. I grant that a study may be carried out well and yet have little significance. (I recently read a report on a study that demonstrated gentlemen really do prefer blondes, which I thought had been amply demonstrated already.) HOWEVER, if the complaint about a study is that it should be dismissed because it was improperly done, then the demonstration that it was properly done answers that criticism.
 
markeverett49 said:
If by “garbage” you mean “saying something you would rather not hear,” then perhaps so. I grant that a study may be carried out well and yet have little significance. (I recently read a report on a study that demonstrated gentlemen really do prefer blondes, which I thought had been amply demonstrated already.) HOWEVER, if the complaint about a study is that it should be dismissed because it was improperly done, then the demonstration that it was properly done answers that criticism.
Click to expand...
No one said the study was properly done, it just said that the author was not guilty of misconduct. HUGE difference. Also I did look into the study after I posted that and pointed out some SERIOUS flaws.
 
Oh. For a second I thought you were going to say that homosexual unions in general were bad for children, not just gay adoption. 😃
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Oh. For a second I thought you were going to say that homosexual unions in general were bad for children, not just gay adoption. 😃
Click to expand...
This isn’t even about gay adoption…this is about the biological parents having a gay relationship…so there is a lot more to it than a gay couple adopting a child…these families are likely broken by cheating and lies.
 
interestedman said:
This isn’t even about gay adoption…this is about the biological parents having a gay relationship…so there is a lot more to it than a gay couple adopting a child…these families are likely broken by cheating and lies.
Click to expand...
Right - so why are you so hung up on it? It’s not about gay adoption. The study concluded that ADULT children of same-sex couples (including parents who had same-sex romantic relationships), have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact families. This really shouldn’t surprise anyone.
 
interestedman said:
No one said the study was properly done, it just said that the author was not guilty of misconduct. HUGE difference. Also I did look into the study after I posted that and pointed out some SERIOUS flaws.
Click to expand...
Can you cite any other studies with a better (more robust) representative sample?
 
interestedman said:
All I am saying is that the paper suggests that one variable (homosexuality of parents) has a large effect on children. The fact that there was a HUGE gap between families with gay parents and families with non divorced biological parents in terms of financial stability could help explain the disparity. IF the study wanted to academically honest they would have tried to control for the financial disparity and other variables to see if the observation that children with homosexual parents were worse off.

Issues that should be debated in academia? The fact that the study is completely one sided and didn’t try to adjust for other variables because that would likely ruin the “conclusions” of the study? The fact that a complete amateur like myself looked at the study for 10 minutes and found SERIOUS problems that anyone that was being academically honest would have addressed shows how this study is extremely one sided. Or do you not think that being on welfare might effect a child negatively?

Why didn’t the author compare families with similar financial situations? Hmmm, maybe it is because if he did that the conclusions would have been different from what he wanted (or should I say the people that put up the money for the study wanted.)

The study might not have been guilty of “academic misconduct” but it was certainly done very poorly and in a biased manner to get the desired results.
Click to expand...
Do you dispute the fact that divorced women receive more public assistance (e.g., TANF) than married women?
 
stewstew03 said:
Right - so why are you so hung up on it? It’s not about gay adoption. The study concluded that ADULT children of same-sex couples (including parents who had same-sex romantic relationships), have more emotional and social problems than do adult children of heterosexual parents with intact families. This really shouldn’t surprise anyone.
Click to expand...
No, the study didn’t conclude anything. You cannot conclude anything from an observational study, just suggest it. The study showed a link between adult children of people that ONE of their BIOLOGICAL parents had at least one gay relationship. So any of the parents in this study have to be bisexual, not exclusively gay. Also, this study is incredibly flawed because it didn’t try to control for other factors (a HUGE one being finances). Maybe living in the suburbs vs. living in the ghetto accounts for the large disparity.
 
stewstew03 said:
Can you cite any other studies with a better (more robust) representative sample?
Click to expand...
The sample size means nothing if you analyze it in a biased way (like this study) without even TRYING to control for other factors. This would be like me looking at kids from hetersexual couples living in the ghetto and comparing how they turn out to kids raised by rich gay couples. Who do you think would fare better? The study is absolutely horrible.
 
all I am saying is when something goes against the mainstream rather than attack the content of the article they attack the author’s credibility rather than the actual research.
 
Rhuarc said:
all I am saying is when something goes against the mainstream rather than attack the content of the article they attack the author’s credibility rather than the actual research.
Click to expand...
lol, what are you talking about? I have read a few critiques and none of them have personally attacked the author. They might have mentioned that the study was funded by people involved with “NOM” which is a very anti gay marriage group, but I didn’t read one article attacking the author. They ALL attack the study. And it certainly is not hard to attack. The study doesn’t really show what it seems. If your biological parent has had a homosexual relationship then obviously it isn’t with their spouse. It seems like most of these kids come from broken homes which obviously is not the best scenario for a child. The kids studied are not being raised by monogamous gay couples.

Also, more than half of the families with one gay parent were on welfare at one point and only 17% of the families with biological parents were on welfare at one point. So the disparity in financial situation could have played a big role, but the author conveniently didn’t even attempt to control for this (probably because it would have completely changed the results and they wouldn’t have been the results the author was looking for).
 
interestedman said:
The sample size means nothing if you analyze it in a biased way (like this study) without even TRYING to control for other factors. This would be like me looking at kids from hetersexual couples living in the ghetto and comparing how they turn out to kids raised by rich gay couples. Who do you think would fare better? The study is absolutely horrible.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken - one way to control for “other factors” is to use a random sample, which Regnerus did.

All the criticisms you offer apply equally to the research conducted before 2012; surely this fact is not lost on you, eh mate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top