Study: Outcomes for children raised by "gays" sub-optimal

[dbackjon]

JSO, adopted kids in general are more likely to be mal-adjusted. I just skimmed over the paper, but it looks like they didn't bother to separate IVF babies raised by same-sex parents and adopted kids or take into consideration what age the kids were adopted in the first place.

Of course not, that would've skewed thier results AWAY from thier predetermined conclusion.

JSO, adopted kids in general are more likely to be mal-adjusted. I just skimmed over the paper, but it looks like they didn't bother to separate IVF babies raised by same-sex parents and adopted kids or take into consideration what age the kids were adopted in the first place.

Of course not, that would've skewed thier results AWAY from thier predetermined conclusion.

[D1B]

Of course not, that would've skewed thier results AWAY from thier predetermined conclusion.

Of course not, that would've skewed thier results AWAY from thier predetermined conclusion.

But what about the catholics?

[Ibanez]

But what about the catholics?

what about them?


Ha. Good one.

[BDKJMU]

Exactly, this can be quite entertaining. Some of the immature people on here, one in particular, get all bent out of shape, calling JSO all these names and he'll calmly respond as if they never called him anything. In this case he comes across as the rational one.

BDSM,

He don't come across as rational. He come across as someone comfortable and confident with his racist and bigoted views. He's composed, not rational.

Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.

[BDKJMU]

He's composed, not rational.

So he's one up on you.

Was just thinking the same thing.....

[D1B]

So he's one up on you.

Was just thinking the same thing.....

You were thinking something completely different 1 minute ago.

[SeattleGriz]

Was just thinking the same thing.....

You were thinking something completely different 1 minute ago.

He has thoughts quicker than one a minute.

[JohnStOnge]

I also like how JSO is willing to use a social scientific observational study to make his point in this thread but questions the validity of any climate change theory that isn't able to provide unquestioned, definitive proof of its assertions.

I indicated in the opening post of this thread that the answers to questions pertaining to whether or not this study shows that there is some adverse effect of homosexual parenting is "no" because it is an observational study. That is the same thing I have said in the past about the climate change thing. I said that the big point is that those on the "Focus on the Family" side now have a study they can refer to.

I read the whole paper last night and I can say that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did something in its physical science basis report that I like better than what the author of this report did. The IPCC conceded that unequivocal "attribution" of cause and effect is not possible without controlled experiments which are not possible. The author of this report did say that this particular study does not show cause and effect. But he appears to think that one can show cause and effect with an observational study as he wrote this:

Although the NFSS offers strong support for the notion that there are significant differences among young adults that correspond closely to the parental behavior,family structures,and household experiences during their youth, I have not and will not speculate here on causality, in part because the data are not optimally designed to do so, and because the causal reckoning for so many different types of outcomes is well beyond what an overview manuscript like this one could ever pur-port to accomplish. Focused (and more complex) analyses of unique outcomes, drawing upon idiosyncratic, domain-specificconceptual models, is recommended for scholars who wish to more closely assess the functions that the number, gender,and sexual decision-making of parents may play in young adults’ lives. I am thus not suggesting that growing up with a lesbian mother or gay father causes suboptimal outcomes because of the sexual orientation or sexual behavior of the parent; rather,my point is more modest: the groups display numerous, notable distinctions, especially when compared with young adults whose biological mother and father remain married.

I think it would have been better for him to just say that an observational study can't be used to infer cause and effect.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO, adopted kids in general are more likely to be mal-adjusted. I just skimmed over the paper, but it looks like they didn't bother to separate IVF babies raised by same-sex parents and adopted kids or take into consideration what age the kids were adopted in the first place.

They did take the age of adoption into consideration (adopted means they were adopted at birth or before age 2) but in general your point if valid. For the most part...to the extent that the study suggests anything...it suggests that the best circumstance (on average) among those considered is being the biological child of a male/female couple who were married when the kid was in the household and who were still married as of the end of the study.

The Lesbian Mother (LM) and Gay Father (GF) groups are simply subjects who reported that their mother (LM) or father (GF) had a same sex romantic relationship. The investigator made decisions to make the groups mutually exclusive. For example, as far as I can tell, if a child was adopted but reported that his mother had a same sex romantic relationship that child went into the LM group and not into the adopted group. Also if a child reported that both mother and father had same sex romantic relationships that child went into the GF group because that was the smaller group and they needed more observations in it.

I think the biggest point associated with your observation is that there is no way to get any information from this study on how children adopted by homosexual couples turned out vs. how children adopted by heterosexual couples turned out.

[JohnStOnge]

Overall I think the biggest potential weakness of the study is that they say they have a probability sample but it looks like they may have had a fairly high non response rate. The fact that the author discusses non response (top of page 756) but refers the reader to the survey consulting firm rather than just reporting it arouses suspicion. Also the author does report that the "typical" response rate obtained by the consulting firm is 65%. 35% is a high non response rate.

In a true probability sample, every possible sample from the population that could be collected through the sampling strategy has an equal chance of being selected. Random chance determines which elements are included. When someone doesn't respond, something other than chance determines who is in the sample and who is not. And you cannot assume that those who do not respond are not characterized by certain things that make them less likely to respond. You don't have a true probability sample. The extent of error that can introduce depends in part on how large the non response rate is. But the "typical" non response rate of 35% is pretty large.

Survey firms try to mitigate that with models to estimate how those who didn't respond would have responded. But such models would have to be validated. The process is fairly well validated, I think, for polls pertaining to elections (for example) because we get to compare the poll estimates just prior to elections to the actual results. If the actual results are within the polls' "margins of error" around 95% of the time we can see that what they're doing to handle non response is working. And I think political polls taken just prior to elections do correctly estimate election results to within their margins of errors at least 95% of the time. In fact I think their accuracy is remarkable given the problems they face.

But with respect to a study like this one there is no way to validate any effort to handle non response. Also there is absolutely no discussion of how non response was handled. We don't know if they even attempted to model the non response population or if they just went directly with the responses they got.

[JoltinJoe]

Hey, I didn't call him any names, but I think he's wrong on these arguments.

Joe, besides treating gays with respect, which is great, what are you doing to counter your church's multi-million dollar marketing and lobbying efforts that marginalize gay couples wanting to share in the joys and benefits of marriage? I suppose a major "external" pressure you speak of is your own church's archaic stance on gay marriage.

I hope you aint just sitting silent while your church dehumanizes people like Dback and ****. I think it's easy to blame these types of things, including the world wide child sexual abuse scandal, on Vatican leadership, but while true, ultimately its the fault of the flock for not holding them accountable.

Was this a question? It seems to be larded with a lot of dubious factual claims, so I assume the intent is not really to ask a question.

Who cares anyway. You're not really interested in a discussion.

[JohnStOnge]

The biggest "plus" in this paper for the "Focus on the Family" side is the discussion of previous studies that have been cited in popular media and culture as "showing" that there is no adverse effect of having homosexual parents or even that having homosexual parents is better. Whatever the shortcomings of this study were, at least there was an ATTEMPT to collect a probability sample and there was no overt "self selection" by subjects.

The author makes the correct point that it has never been valid to say that "the research shows that there are no adverse effects of having homosexual parents." Actually that could never be done just like it'd never be possible to show the contrary.

That's the problem with social science. Sometimes I wonder why we even have it. It'd be fine if people would understand that all it can do is describe things...paint a picture of what is...and even then the painting has to be taken with a grain of salt due to the problems with obtaining a true probability sample. But people take it as showing cause and effect and it can never do that.

[D1B]

Joe, besides treating gays with respect, which is great, what are you doing to counter your church's multi-million dollar marketing and lobbying efforts that marginalize gay couples wanting to share in the joys and benefits of marriage? I suppose a major "external" pressure you speak of is your own church's archaic stance on gay marriage.

I hope you aint just sitting silent while your church dehumanizes people like Dback and ****. I think it's easy to blame these types of things, including the world wide child sexual abuse scandal, on Vatican leadership, but while true, ultimately its the fault of the flock for not holding them accountable.

Was this a question? It seems to be larded with a lot of dubious factual claims, so I assume the intent is not really to ask a question.

Who cares anyway. You're not really interested in a discussion.

Yes it was. I'll rephrase:

Joe, besides treating gays with respect, which is great, what are you doing to counter your church's multi-million dollar marketing and lobbying efforts that marginalize gay couples wanting to share in the joys and benefits of marriage? I suppose a major "external" pressure you speak of is your own church's archaic stance on gay marriage.

I hope you aint just sitting silent while your church dehumanizes people like Dback and ****. I think it's easy to blame these types of things, including the world wide child sexual abuse scandal, on Vatican leadership, but while true, ultimately its the fault of the flock for not holding them accountable

That you arrogantly dismiss the tough questions clearly indicates it is YOU who is unwilling to engage in a meaningful discussion.

[UNI88]

I also like how JSO is willing to use a social scientific observational study to make his point in this thread but questions the validity of any climate change theory that isn't able to provide unquestioned, definitive proof of its assertions.

I indicated in the opening post of this thread that the answers to questions pertaining to whether or not this study shows that there is some adverse effect of homosexual parenting is "no" because it is an observational study. That is the same thing I have said in the past about the climate change thing. I said that the big point is that those on the "Focus on the Family" side now have a study they can refer to.

I read the whole paper last night and I can say that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did something in its physical science basis report that I like better than what the author of this report did. The IPCC conceded that unequivocal "attribution" of cause and effect is not possible without controlled experiments which are not possible. The author of this report did say that this particular study does not show cause and effect. But he appears to think that one can show cause and effect with an observational study as he wrote this:

I think it would have been better for him to just say that an observational study can't be used to infer cause and effect.

John, you did make that statement at the beginning. I found it humorous that you then you proceeded to use the study in following posts. If someone (YT) were to use a scientifically flawed but still stronger climate change study in a similar fashion you would have beaten him or her over the head with the fact that the study was not definitive and shouldn't be used as proof of anything.

I don't intend to be critical. IMO, you tend to see the world in as much more black and white than I do and you invariably require that all scientific studies be extremely rigorous and definitive. You're typically very consistent in the approach but in this instance you veered away from your typical MO. When it was pointed out you went back, reread the study and admitted its flaws. Kudos.

That's the problem with social science. Sometimes I wonder why we even have it. It'd be fine if people would understand that all it can do is describe things...paint a picture of what is...and even then the painting has to be taken with a grain of salt due to the problems with obtaining a true probability sample. But people take it as showing cause and effect and it can never do that.

I wouldn't question why we have social science. You can question why we call it a science but even if the results are not definitive there is still tremendous value in establishing theories about why people behave a certain way. The evolution of economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, etc. has been significant and each has added to our understanding of the human race (which to me is a much more fascinating field of study than chemistry or physics).

[JohnStOnge]

John, you did make that statement at the beginning. I found it humorous that you then you proceeded to use the study in following posts. If someone (YT) were to use a scientifically flawed but still stronger climate change study in a similar fashion you would have beaten him or her over the head with the fact that the study was not definitive and shouldn't be used as proof of anything.

I don't think so. Honestly read my posts again. Most of what I did was describe what appeared to be in the study and comment on observational vs. experimental studies. At no point did I say the study proved anything about cause and effect.

An observational study can be used as "proof" in a descriptive sense. For example: An observational study can potentially show that the average annual temperature of the earth has been in an increasing trend or it can show that some family arrangement is associated with better outcomes than some other family arrangement. What it can't be used as "proof" for is beliefs about what caused those things. For example: And observational study could show that children of Gay fathers are characterized by a higher rate of contemplating suicide than children raised in families with a heterosexual father and heterosexual mother who remained married do. And that might suggest something to us. But it does not "prove" that the difference in the family structures caused the difference in rate of contemplating suicide.

I think every post I've made is consistent with those premises. I may say that an observational study "suggests" something or that appears to be consistent with a certain belief. But I will not intentionally say that it shows cause and effect.

[BlueHen86]

John, you did make that statement at the beginning. I found it humorous that you then you proceeded to use the study in following posts. If someone (YT) were to use a scientifically flawed but still stronger climate change study in a similar fashion you would have beaten him or her over the head with the fact that the study was not definitive and shouldn't be used as proof of anything.

I don't think so. Honestly read my posts again. Most of what I did was describe what appeared to be in the study and comment on observational vs. experimental studies. At no point did I say the study proved anything about cause and effect.

An observational study can be used as "proof" in a descriptive sense. For example: An observational study can potentially show that the average annual temperature of the earth has been in an increasing trend or it can show that some family arrangement is associated with better outcomes than some other family arrangement. What it can't be used as "proof" for is beliefs about what caused those things. For example: And observational study could show that children of Gay fathers are characterized by a higher rate of contemplating suicide than children raised in families with a heterosexual father and heterosexual mother who remained married do. And that might suggest something to us. But it does not "prove" that the difference in the family structures caused the difference in rate of contemplating suicide.

I think every post I've made is consistent with those premises. I may say that an observational study "suggests" something or that appears to be consistent with a certain belief. But I will not intentionally say that it shows cause and effect.

Your posts are too long. Nobody want to read them once, let alone twice.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't intend to be critical. IMO, you tend to see the world in as much more black and white than I do and you invariably require that all scientific studies be extremely rigorous and definitive. You're typically very consistent in the approach but in this instance you veered away from your typical MO. When it was pointed out you went back, reread the study and admitted its flaws. Kudos.

Actually, in my initial post, I said that I had not yet read the study and that it could be that I would find some things to nit pick. I said that it appears on the surface to be a rigorous observational study based on a large probability sample. The fact that I said "yet" was telling you that I was going to read it. And I did. It wasn't because someone pointed anything out to me.

When I did read it I found that it probably wasn't a pure probability sample because there was probably a fairly large non response rate and that there are questions about what was done (or not done) to account for that.

But in any case I said that the main thing about the study is that it gives those on the "Focus on the Family'" side something to refer to.

[JohnStOnge]

Your posts are too long. Nobody want to read them once, let alone twice.

Yes I know that is a problem. But the difficulty is that if you want to back up what you say and/or provide a fairly full description of what you're talking about your posts are going to be longer. One can try to strike a balance but in general it's going to mean fairly long posts when one is dealing with fairly complex issues.

[JMU DJ]

The journals letter won't come out on it until November, but a good chance it will get redacted.

Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds

The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study.

The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/c ... _medium=en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

Conks are obsessed with gay men

[CID1990]

Hey why are there quotations around the word gays in the title?

Don't know if it was already answered but I dont want to go back and read through everybody's sh!t.

[89Hen]

Conks are obsessed with gay men

I would say everyone is.






MODERATOR NOTE - DO NOT POST PICTURES OF BOARD MEMBERS WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.