S
stewstew03
Guest
So, the reason welfare is overrepresented in the sample is because many of the lesbian mothers, apparently, were divorcees.
Study confirmed as valid: Homosexual unions are bad for kids
- Status
I
interestedman
Guest
No, that isn’t how you control for “other factors.” How you control for other factors is by comparing families that were on welfare with other families on welfare and families that aren’t on welfare with other families not on welfare. Another way would be to compare families of biological parents that hadn’t had a same sex relationship and families with biological parents that did have a same sex relationship but were still together. Because then you would be able to see if all other variables were the same (or at least as close as possible) if the parent having a same sex relationship in the past actually made the difference.
THAT is how you control for other factors. You could probably make some ridiculous conclusions if you don’t control for other factors. I bet there are probably some differences between people that lived on a road that started with a instead of b. Does that mean that you should avoid living on a road that starts with the letter a? You obviously have no idea how these studies work.
I
interestedman
Guest
And if that is true than the fact that they were divorcees and on welfare could very well have made the difference, not that they had lesbian relationships in the past. But since those variables weren’t controlled for (probably because they would have completely changed the results to not the ones that the people that funded the study would have wanted) we can’t actually know.
B
Bradski
Guest
A random sample?
Regenerus asked if a child had lived with two parents, either one of whom had had an extramarital association with someone of the same sex. Of 15,000 adults, do you know how many he discovered had been brought up for the whole of their childhood in a gay relationship?
Two.
Some quotes from Regenerus himself:
“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, adding it’s true, he did not know that relationship.
“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.
“…one of the key methodological criticisms circulating is that–basically–in a population-based sample, I haven’t really evaluated how the adult children of stably-intact coupled self-identified lesbians have fared. Right? Right. And I’m telling you that it cannot be feasibly accomplished”.
I wonder how many people using this report to prove some sort of point or ‘to spread the word’ as was mentioned earlier, have actually read it.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Yes, I think that’s a fair point - I haven’t denied that there may be (and probably are) confounding variables; in fact, I agreed in a previous post that the study might be “complete garbage.” But, then again, so might all the research in this area.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Slow down, cowboy. I agree with a good bit of what you’re saying - but in order to apply the statistical procedures that would allow a researcher to control for other factors (such as SES) one needs to eliminate systematic error; and the way to eliminate systematic error is by random sampling. The good news is that he will make his sample available to other researchers, so they will have a solid sample to utilize and apply different methods/techniques.
I do hold a graduate degree in Sociology, so I do have some “idea how these studies work” (though I don’t claim to be an expert in quantitative methodology).
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
This poor man’s reputation is still damaged for life, even though he is innocent of the accusations.
It’s like charging a priest with rape. Even if he’s innocent nobody is going to look at him the same way.
It’s like charging a priest with rape. Even if he’s innocent nobody is going to look at him the same way.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
The title of this thread proves my point that it is liable to be misunderstood.
I’m curious, did they control for ethnicities and exposure to Western Media?
It’s not about same sex couples, affairs qualify too and affairs drastically increase chance of divorce which increases chances for all sorts of nasty things which can harm a child.
actually " living in the suburbs vs. living in the ghetto" is dealt with by random sampling.
But if you are limiting it to all 18 years then you’ve effectively turned the study to a same sex adoption study.
S
stewstew03
Guest
Only “same-sex” affairs qualify.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
They are still affairs which are associate with divorce and all sorts of nastiness through it.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
For another perspective, here is an article by a playwright who was raised by two lesbians, and who describes the problems it created for him, and why he supports the Regnerus study:
crisismagazine.com/2012/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-childrens-view
The article, which was originally published on another site, predictably caused a lot if disagreement. The author describes why he wrote it, and gets a string of abuse:
lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/08/19/bisexual-csun-prof-robert-oscar-lopez-explains-support-for-regnerus-study/
crisismagazine.com/2012/growing-up-with-two-moms-the-untold-childrens-view
The article, which was originally published on another site, predictably caused a lot if disagreement. The author describes why he wrote it, and gets a string of abuse:
lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2012/08/19/bisexual-csun-prof-robert-oscar-lopez-explains-support-for-regnerus-study/
I
interestedman
Guest
I am sure that I could find all sorts of articles on gay marriage websites where children of gay marriage say the complete opposite. One person’s perspective means very little.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
If the perspective of one person (who has actually been in the situation that is being discussed) doesn’t matter, and if any statistical study that draws a conclusion you disagree with must be discarded as biased, you really have no basis for rational discussion of any issue.
The author made some important points in the articles, including the problems with the gay community discarding “bisexual” parents as non-representative of an imagined gay parenting mainstream, when by definition must LGBT parents will fall into the “B” category of the LGBTgroup…
S
sw85
Guest
We didn’t need a study to tell us this. Homosexual unions are only “good” for kids (sometimes) according to a very narrow, leftist, materialist definition of what constitutes “the good.” Since our dispute with leftists is not whether homosexual unions are “good” in this sense but whether their understanding of “the good” is actually correct, scientific studies are not the proper arbiter for this engagement. Philosophy and theology are.
Leftists may be wrong on the particular (that homosexual unions are “good” for kids according to this narrow definition) but that shouldn’t surprise us, nor is it a victory, nor should it be the focus of our objections. Our objection should be that the leftist vision of the good is false, evil, inauthentic, a counterfeit, a positive misrepresentation of natural human goods born of ignorance and misunderstanding. That it doesn’t even bear out in practice isn’t surprise because it’s wrong even in theory. In other words, hack at the base of the tree, not the twigs sprouting from its branches.
Leftists may be wrong on the particular (that homosexual unions are “good” for kids according to this narrow definition) but that shouldn’t surprise us, nor is it a victory, nor should it be the focus of our objections. Our objection should be that the leftist vision of the good is false, evil, inauthentic, a counterfeit, a positive misrepresentation of natural human goods born of ignorance and misunderstanding. That it doesn’t even bear out in practice isn’t surprise because it’s wrong even in theory. In other words, hack at the base of the tree, not the twigs sprouting from its branches.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Excellent points from the moral theology perspective, sw85. To put it more bluntly- homosexual activity is a grave sin. For a same sex couple who are sexually active either within or outside of their same sex arrangement to raise a child can only compound the sin. As far as same sex couples where each party, though having homosexual orientation, is celibate- that might be a somewhat different story, although they would still be modeling disordered “parenting.”
Parenthetically, same sex “marriages” are not recognized by the Catholic Church, and that’s why I don’t refer to these arrangements as “marriage.” To do so would be to make a mockery of a Holy Sacrament.
P
Prodigal_40s
Guest
Exactly regarding the two previous posts. Same sex relationships are against sacred scripture; it’s not even open to interpretation. Over to you Jim:
Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?
As for the secular and evil ideas around relationships and parenting, if people live according to the 10 commandments and the virtues detailed in the Cathechism, obviating sin, then kids will be brought up well. However, wait until we get another one of these sociological studies to tell us this. All due respect to the OP but let the Book and tradition guide you and don’t concern yourself with sociologists proving truth right and being beaten up by an atheist friendly media; it’ll do you no harm
Marriage between a man and a woman was instituted by God with Adam and Eve. Genesis 2:24 states: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
In Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus reaffirms this: "He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?
As for the secular and evil ideas around relationships and parenting, if people live according to the 10 commandments and the virtues detailed in the Cathechism, obviating sin, then kids will be brought up well. However, wait until we get another one of these sociological studies to tell us this. All due respect to the OP but let the Book and tradition guide you and don’t concern yourself with sociologists proving truth right and being beaten up by an atheist friendly media; it’ll do you no harm
I
interestedman
Guest
There are plenty of marriages that are between a man and a woman and not recognized by the church. Do you call those marriages?
J
JimG
Guest
How strange. The thread title is rather like saying, “Study confirms that pounding kids’ heads with a hammer is bad for them.”
I
interestedman
Guest
I didn’t say that the perspective of one person doesn’t matter, I just said that there are plenty of people raised by gay parents that disagree.
If you want a story from the other side, here is a GREAT one:
thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/06/a-tale-of-two-moms-a-teenage-son-and-a-video-that-wouldn-t-die.html
And the study wasn’t discarded because I didn’t like its conclusions, it was discarded because of its HORRIBLE methodology and clear bias, which I explain in earlier posts and has been taken apart all over the internet.
I
interestedman
Guest
The thread title should say “Biased study makes conclusions that the people that funded the study wanted.”
- Status