How explosive is this report going to prove
Discussion
Guam said:
Basically its about how children fare being brought up in same sex relationships, hopefully people can keep the discussions sensible on this one 
Except it's not... most critics agree that it is actually a paper on stable versus unstable parenting (the conclusion of which is 'stable=good;unstable=bad), irrespective of the parent's sexuality. But you may be right, there are various bits that could be misconstrued for the DailyMailEffect.It's proving pretty explosive without going mainstream, complaints pointing out alleged failings in his methods have caused his employer to investigate the study in more detail.
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-investigate...
http://www.statesman.com/news/local/ut-investigate...
Marf said:
That kids raised by LGBT parents have more problems than kids raised by straight parents who remain married until the child becomes a full adult.
It is easy to imagine the right wing Christian movement in the US just lapping this up. There are legions of special interest groups who would be overjoyed if the report were true. This is as good a reason as any to be very cautious indeed in believing its conclusions without a thorough understanding of its methods and a proper peer review. This will probably never happen because it doesn't matter - the report will have served its purpose and elevated groups on both sides to the extent that they are screaming at each other and so each side feels validated for their own point of view.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/201...
The last paragraph of this article sums up the criticisms against the study quite nicely.
" The paper fails to consider the impact of family arrangement or family transitions on children, invalidating any attempt on its part to assess the impact of sexual orientation on parenting. The paper inappropriately compares children raised by two heterosexual parents for 18 years with children who experience family transitions like foster care or who live with single or divorced parents, or in blended families. Moreover, the limited number of respondents arbitrarily classified as having a gay or lesbian parent are combined regardless of their experiences of family instability."
Basically he's not comparing apples with apples.
The last paragraph of this article sums up the criticisms against the study quite nicely.
" The paper fails to consider the impact of family arrangement or family transitions on children, invalidating any attempt on its part to assess the impact of sexual orientation on parenting. The paper inappropriately compares children raised by two heterosexual parents for 18 years with children who experience family transitions like foster care or who live with single or divorced parents, or in blended families. Moreover, the limited number of respondents arbitrarily classified as having a gay or lesbian parent are combined regardless of their experiences of family instability."
Basically he's not comparing apples with apples.
Fair enough, I'm happy to form my own opinion on the methodology and I'll state it clearly.
I am surprised he didnt control for the parental relationship status.
I think I'm safe to say that studies already show that children going through foster care and those who have experienced divorce are more likely to have problems as adults, more prone to suicide, have developmental issues etc, so not controlling for these factors seems like a major oversight, especially for a sociology professor.
He's clouded the sexuality issue by not doing so.
NB I'm not looking for an argument, just calling it like I sees it.
I am surprised he didnt control for the parental relationship status.
I think I'm safe to say that studies already show that children going through foster care and those who have experienced divorce are more likely to have problems as adults, more prone to suicide, have developmental issues etc, so not controlling for these factors seems like a major oversight, especially for a sociology professor.
He's clouded the sexuality issue by not doing so.
NB I'm not looking for an argument, just calling it like I sees it.
Edited by Marf on Wednesday 25th July 22:27
I think one of the issues is he groups 'kids from families with heterosexual parents' against 'kids with a parent who had a same-sex relationship at some point during the kid's upbringing'. In the data there are only 2 (two) respondents who grew up in a family with same-sex parents for the full duration of their upbringing. We don't get a grouping of 'gay parents', we get a grouping of 'kids who had a disrupted upbringing'.
Guam said:
Randy Winkman said:
In the UK, it wont be "explosive" at all. Nobody will give a monkey's.
Not a Daily Wail reader then And I don't believe it.
I don't know personally, anyone who is lesbian or gay, and looks after children, but I have met the odd weird hetro-sexual, who I wouldn't trust my kids with.
Guam said:
And why? Well because Regnerus had the temerity to say things like this (if you are unused to raw, unmedia-filtered data, then I suggest you avert your eyes until after the summary):
•23% of now-grown children of families with a lesbian mother said ‘yes’ to “Ever touched sexually by parent/adult“, versus 6% of those of families with a gay father and only 2% of those now-grown children from traditional mom-dad, Ozzie-Harriet families.
•31% of now-grown children of families with a lesbian mother said ‘yes’ to “Ever forced to have sex against will“, versus 25% of those of families with a gay father and only 8% of those now-grown children from traditional mom-dad families.
I have no dog in this fight, but these two data sets seem contradictory; •23% of now-grown children of families with a lesbian mother said ‘yes’ to “Ever touched sexually by parent/adult“, versus 6% of those of families with a gay father and only 2% of those now-grown children from traditional mom-dad, Ozzie-Harriet families.
•31% of now-grown children of families with a lesbian mother said ‘yes’ to “Ever forced to have sex against will“, versus 25% of those of families with a gay father and only 8% of those now-grown children from traditional mom-dad families.
-How is rape(that's what I call forced sex) not sexual touching? Yet 23% < 31%
-Is pederasty really that common?
Interesting that his bio from Trinity Christian College where he teaches says;
"...One of the classes he teaches at Texas is the sociology of religion, exploring the dynamics between the study of relationships and the study of faiths. His own Reformed faith comes to light while engaging with his students.
"As Christians, our lives should reflect our relationship with God and our desire to glorify Him," Regnerus says. "I've noticed that some Christian professors see a disconnect between their faith and their profession. I believe that if your faith matters, it should inform what you teach and what you research.
"I've heard how professors totally dismiss the principles of their students' faith, particularly Christian principles. That is consummate disrespect. Those beliefs are invaluable to the people who hold them.
"That's why I want my students to recognize the connection between my faith and my work. I want them to know that they don't have to lay their beliefs aside although the environment may suggest otherwise. I feel that I'm exactly where God wants me to be."
Interesting how he believes his faith should influence his research, surely this is contradictory to a scientific study that should be objective and independent of any personal opinion or skewed to reflect ones own beliefs?
"...One of the classes he teaches at Texas is the sociology of religion, exploring the dynamics between the study of relationships and the study of faiths. His own Reformed faith comes to light while engaging with his students.
"As Christians, our lives should reflect our relationship with God and our desire to glorify Him," Regnerus says. "I've noticed that some Christian professors see a disconnect between their faith and their profession. I believe that if your faith matters, it should inform what you teach and what you research.
"I've heard how professors totally dismiss the principles of their students' faith, particularly Christian principles. That is consummate disrespect. Those beliefs are invaluable to the people who hold them.
"That's why I want my students to recognize the connection between my faith and my work. I want them to know that they don't have to lay their beliefs aside although the environment may suggest otherwise. I feel that I'm exactly where God wants me to be."
Interesting how he believes his faith should influence his research, surely this is contradictory to a scientific study that should be objective and independent of any personal opinion or skewed to reflect ones own beliefs?
Edited by djstevec on Wednesday 25th July 23:22
bigandclever said:
I think one of the issues is he groups 'kids from families with heterosexual parents' against 'kids with a parent who had a same-sex relationship at some point during the kid's upbringing'. In the data there are only 2 (two) respondents who grew up in a family with same-sex parents for the full duration of their upbringing. We don't get a grouping of 'gay parents', we get a grouping of 'kids who had a disrupted upbringing'.
So the research could say something about longevity of same-sex partnerships with children?(assuming no selection bias)
Guam said:
Good sociology blog here which has some worthwhile points.
And makes some very valid criticisms about the methodology most of which are very balanced imho.
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/bad-scienc...
This raises many questions about Peer Review data manipulation and survey design etc etc with regards to this report.
Something we have seen extensively in the AGW debate.
Maybe I am pessimistic in outlook but I dont see it being as much of a damp squib as AJS and Eric, but I hope they are right. I cant help but feel as one poster identified that in a US election year this is likely to be seriously misused by those with political ideologies and some real harm being done to areas of the community <maybe I am just too cynical these days>
And wtf does any of that have to do with either the UK or Europe? Its the usual American religious socio gibberish. Utterly ignorable.And makes some very valid criticisms about the methodology most of which are very balanced imho.
http://scatter.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/bad-scienc...
This raises many questions about Peer Review data manipulation and survey design etc etc with regards to this report.
Something we have seen extensively in the AGW debate.
Maybe I am pessimistic in outlook but I dont see it being as much of a damp squib as AJS and Eric, but I hope they are right. I cant help but feel as one poster identified that in a US election year this is likely to be seriously misused by those with political ideologies and some real harm being done to areas of the community <maybe I am just too cynical these days>
Guam said:
DJRC said:
And wtf does any of that have to do with either the UK or Europe? Its the usual American religious socio gibberish. Utterly ignorable.
One could make the same point with many threads on here, not least of which being the Colorado shooting one, are we saying we limit our discussions to UK or Europe only now? But your question was how big a story this was going to be. My prediction is that, in Europe, it is a complete non-story with no one in the media picking it up as worthwile in any way. The fact that it hasn't been mentioned in a single organ of the media as far as I can see seems to support this view.
However, if PHers want to get into a tizz over it, there is nothing to stop them.
The next hot topic might be the rise of goat rustling in Outer Mongolia.
I'd like to believe that this will not have much of an impact in Europe. We dont have the same bipolar nature about issues as America seems to.
I think it'll be a flash in the pan here, perhaps a few news articles, a Newsnight piece which will dissect the study and find it to be as irrelevant as I think we've decided it is within this thread.
However in the US, it'll become an election issue. Barry'O has come out in favour of gay marriage. Romney will pick up on this study, use it to bash Obama on his gay rights stance and also use it to make a wider point about the breakdown of the traditional family unit in the US.
I think it'll be a flash in the pan here, perhaps a few news articles, a Newsnight piece which will dissect the study and find it to be as irrelevant as I think we've decided it is within this thread.
However in the US, it'll become an election issue. Barry'O has come out in favour of gay marriage. Romney will pick up on this study, use it to bash Obama on his gay rights stance and also use it to make a wider point about the breakdown of the traditional family unit in the US.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff