A POLITICALLY INCORRECT STATISTICAL STUDY

Generally, I do not have much use for statistical studies on controversial issues. It is too easy to lie with statistics. When the government pays for such studies I just get more disgusted. Don’t we already get enough lies from politicians? Do they have to use our money to finance “research projects” that produce more lies? So when I read CROUSE: Two daddies dilemma, I took it with a grain of salt. Even though the article is about a statistical study that favors my Conservative beliefs, it is still a statistical study. That said, at least government money apparently did not pay for this study.

So why this post? I think helps to illustrate. Here is how Crouse starts her column.

A new study released earlier this month reinforces what social scientists have known for ages: Traditional families produce more stable children. According to the New Family Structures Study (NFSS), adults who grew up in a married-mom-and-dad family are better off than peers whose parents engaged in same-sex relationships.

This is hardly a surprise. Anyone familiar with the mountain of social science research relating to the well being of children knows that the familial gold standard is the traditional one: a mom and dad who marry and successfully avoid the perils of divorce. (continued here)

Do we really need a statistical study to tell us that traditional families produce the best results for children? Unfortunately, it seems some people think we do. The problem with statistical studies on social issues, however, is that the data (hence the conclusions) can be very squishy. Therefore, slate.com (see Back in the Gay) has an article attacking the New Family Structures Study (NFSS). That article focuses on the sampling technique.

To understand the study, you have to read the questionnaire that defined the sample. It began by asking each respondent, as the child of this or that kind of family arrangement, his age. If the respondent was younger than 18 or older than 39, the survey was terminated. This means the entire sample was born between 1971 and 1994, when same-sex marriage was illegal throughout the United States, and millions of homosexuals were trying to pass or function as straight spouses.

The survey went on to ask: “From when you were born until age 18 … did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?” If the respondent said yes, he was put in the “gay father” (GF) or “lesbian mother” (LM) category, regardless of subsequent answers. But if he said no, a later question about the relationship between “your biological parents” was used to classify him as the product of an “intact biological family” (IBF) or of an “adopted,” “divorced,” “stepfamily,” or “single-parent” household. In other words, broken families were excluded from the IBF category but included in the GF and LM categories. (from here)

Effectively, the author of the slate.com article, , blames society for messing up same-sex “families.” Then he uses his interpretation to reach his desired conclusion.

What the study shows, then, is that kids from broken homes headed by gay people develop the same problems as kids from broken homes headed by straight people. But that finding isn’t meaningless. It tells us something important: We need fewer broken homes among gays, just as we do among straights. We need to study Regnerus’ sample and fix the mistakes we made 20 or 40 years ago. No more sham heterosexual marriages. No more post-parenthood self-discoveries. No more deceptions. No more affairs. And no more polarization between homosexuality and marriage. Gay parents owe their kids the same stability as straight parents. That means less talk about marriage as a right, and more about marriage as an expectation. (from here)

To end up where we started in the first place, do we really need to waste money on statistical social studies? Well, let’s put it in perspective. In Why the Liberal Intolerance for New Family Structures Study?, Jennifer Marshall (writing for The Foundry at The Heritage Foundation) observes the hostility to the NFSS from certain quarters. However, what I thought most interesting were the closing paragraphs.

Regnerus’s and Marks’s research has significantly advanced analysis of children’s outcomes in new family structures. Marks’s review of prior studies found data “drawn primarily from small conveniences samples” that cannot support generalized claims for the population at large. Meanwhile, as the Osborne and Amato statements above convey, the NFSS sets a new standard for quality of research comparing emerging family forms.

Such rigor should be welcomed—not rejected—and the new information should enhance—not preempt—debate about the important policy questions related to the institution of marriage.

Think about that. The “experts” claiming that same-sex families do not produce problems for children do not have enough data to back their conclusions.

In an earlier article at The FoundryNew Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter, Christine Kim and Jennifer Marshall focus more heavily on the absence of hard data. That included referencing this press release, Studies challenge established views development of children raised by gay or lesbian parents. Here is how that press release closes.

“Whether same-sex parenting causes the observed differences cannot be determined from Regnerus’ descriptive analysis,” cautions Professor Cynthia Osborne from the University of Texas at Austin.  “Children of lesbian mothers might have lived in many different family structures and it is impossible to isolate the effects of living with a lesbian mother from experiencing divorce, remarriage, or living with a single parent. Or, it is quite possible, that the effect derives entirely from the stigma attached to such relationships and to the legal prohibitions that prevent same-sex couples from entering and maintaining ‘normal relationships’.”

In a final comment on Regnerus’ research, Pennsylvania State University, sociologist and professor Paul Amato points out, “If growing up with gay and lesbian parents were catastrophic for children, even studies based on small convenience samples would have shown this by now […] If differences exist between children with gay/lesbian and heterosexual parents, they are likely to be small or moderate in magnitude—perhaps comparable to those revealed in the research literature on children and divorce.”

So what  comes down is that same-sex “marriages” are experimental, and the “expert” studies don’t tell us much. Supposedly, all we know is that children raised by same-sex couples will probably not suffer catastrophic damage.   :roll:   Gosh! You have a child? What happens if both you and your spouse die in an accident and a same-sex couple adopts your child? Aren’t these studies just the sort of reassurance you want?

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Culture War and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to A POLITICALLY INCORRECT STATISTICAL STUDY

  1. The agenda, in case you didn’t get the memo, is to create a new normal. Moreover, to honor homosexual behavior.

    The studies should be more precise when they describe children of homosexual parents. The subjects are children procured by homosexuals acting as parents.

    Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      When people either don’t know how or are unwilling to define a family, I suspect they also find the precision appropriate to a scientific study problematic. Of course the real problem does not lie with study techniques. The real problem is ethical. To satisfy the egos and the abberant desires of foolish adults, we are experimenting with children, and that is just plain wrong.

      Like

    • joesix says:

      “procured by homosexuals acting as parents.” Wow. Any attempt to illuminate your idiocy would pale in comparison to your own words.

      Like

      • Joesix: When you can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas, calling names may be all you have. Your words are the overflow of your heart.

        Like

      • joesix says:

        James Atticus Bowden: When you imply that homosexuals can’t be real parents and are part of some shadowy agenda focused on “procuring” children, then you have no moral or logical right to call other people name callers.

        Like

  2. Yes, it’s all very experimental.
    I get the argument that the outcome in divorced gay parents should be compared to the outcomes in divorced straight parents, However, that gays currently have higher divorce rates is also something to consider.

    Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      I refuse to use the word “gay” that way. It use to be a perfectly good word.

      When people try to convince that evil is good, they will warp both language and science to achieve their ends. Because they were never married to start with, same-sex “couples” actually have lower divorce rates. Zero, as a matter of fact.

      Like

  3. Joesix: I didn’t imply what you made up. I said quite clearly that Homosexuals procure children. Homosexual sex doesn’t produce children. They must acquire children so they can call themselves parents. They call themselves parents because a homosexual couple can’t be mother and father. No man can be a mother. No woman can be a father. Single parents, either mother or father, can be heroic but they are never both mother and father. They are one or the other. The distinction between parents and father and mother is significant. Children need fathers and mothers. Sometimes, death, divorce or desertion means fathers and mothers are lost. The state has a compelling interest in promoting families with fathers and mothers.

    You are as confused about moral and logical ‘rights’ as you are on this issue of homosexuals fabricating families. I haven’t called anyone a name here.

    Like

    • joesix says:

      Your use of the words “procure” and “acquire” is more telling than you think. Obviously homosexuals can produce children. The study that is the focus of this post concerns itself exclusively on such situations.

      This post also mentions that broken homes — no matter if headed by straight couples, gay couples, or single parents — is the real culprit in destructive child development. More recent and comprehensive studies show that same-sex parents raise children just as well as traditional parents, if not more so.

      http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

      http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

      http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html

      Like

      • Citizen Tom says:

        Look at the last article in your list. What it says confirms what the study I referenced said. Your socalled scientific researchers don’t have enough data to reach any conclusions.

        What results when “researchers” analyze research done by other biased “reseachers” who don’t have any data? It is not research. It is propaganda.

        Like

      • joesix says:

        Yes, that article did say that many of the studies didn’t have particularly large populations, and it unfortunately didn’t mention how large they typically were. Still, there were over 80 different studies they analyzed that likely did show statistical significance, enough to be published anyways. That in itself is pretty significant, but if you’re concerned that those small sample sizes aren’t enough to warrant any non-biased conclusion, I encourage you to share another analysis of studies disproving those findings or even your own personal experience that can attest to the destructive nature of same-sex parents.

        Like

  4. Obviously homosexual can produce children? Not with each other.

    Like

    • joesix says:

      No way! You mean you need a sperm and an egg to make a child?! You’re blowing my mind, dude! That is unless of course I was referring to the fact that homosexuals can and do engage in heterosexual sex or in vitro fertilization . . . kind of like how the study highlighted in this post mentions.

      Like

  5. Citizen Tom says:

    joesix – You are demanding more effort and interest than is required. When it is obvious that sodomy is radically unhealthy and that same-sex sex of any kind is a perversion of our procreative instincts, I am amazed that anyone wants to waste time studying the matter.

    So why I do I post anything about same-sex sex? Unfortunately, some people find this sort of sin a great temptation. Like all sinners those sinners detest being called sinners, and many refuse to repent. Without repentance, sinners cannot remove the stain of their sin. Instead of repenting, homosexual activists would make others culpable in the performance of their sin. Since I do not want to be pressured into calling something I know to be evil good, I have explained why I think same-sex sex is wrong.

    You want a personal experience? Whenever I post on homosexuality, I get floods of spam from porn websites. Since the 14th of June I have gotten over 2200 spam comments, mostly from porn websites. Fortunately, the spam filter diverts that vile garbage into a bit bucket. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if I have also lost a few legitimate comments, but who has the time or the stomach to wade through that much garbage?

    Like

    • joesix says:

      It’s not as obvious as you’d hope. Support for same-sex marriage is now at over 50%, and I’d guess the majority of those people don’t spend their time thinking solely about gay sex. It still boggles my mind that conservatives talk about gay sex much more than any of my gay friends.

      Whenever I post on mole people, I also get hundreds of spam comments from porn sites. I wouldn’t take it personally or assume that only homosexuals watch porn.

      Like

      • Citizen Tom says:

        joesix – Your gibes comes across as rather stupid. For example, you are the one who wanted to discuss homosexuality. Why don’t you just discuss the subject calmly?

        How high is support for homosexual “marriage”? Whenever the people have voted, the people have voted it down. Apparently, much of our political leadership has a different opinion on the matter, and they are trying to drive the public to support same-sex sex. Since our political leadership runs our education system, and those people have dumbed down our education system, I suppose I should not so surprised that some things are not as obvious to people as they should be.

        Since September 2006, I have been blogging quite regularly, and I have received 58,872 spam comments. Ordinarily, I would expect a little less than a couple hundred spam comments a week. When I get six times that, I think that is significant. When the spam comments are pornographic and they are mostly attached to posts on homosexuality, I think we can make a reasonable inference.

        Like

      • joesix says:

        I believe I’m discussing this as calmly as yourself, without calling you stupid. I often get very passionate on this topic because it is a civil rights issue and I have many gay friends and family members — as do you, whether you know it or not.

        Whenever people first voted for interracial marriage, the people voted it down. The rights of a minority should never be decided by the majority. Like it or not, government recognized same-sex marriage will be here sometime within the next 10 years, mostly for the fact that no one my age can come up with a valid reason why it shouldn’t.

        You’re getting more spam comments on your gay posts because you keep using the word “sex.” You’ll get the same results if you start blogging about straight sex, Sex & The City, or Megan Fox.

        Like

  6. Citizen Tom says:

    joesix – How do you know so much about my family and friends? :grin:

    If homosexuality were a genetic trait as some suggest, then it would very likely tend to run in families, but I have never heard anyone even speculate on that. Since no one can prove whether the behavior is learned or genetic, that probably explains why I have never heard such a claim.

    So you don’t think the majority should decide the rights of the minority? I agree. I believe that is why we have a republic. I also think no one should be force to provide someone else their “rights”.

    Check out this post: http://citizentom.com/2012/07/01/corrupted-by-our-supposed-generosity-part-4/
    What do you think of FDR’s Second Bill of Rights? Was FDR calling upon the majority to decide everyone’s rights, even a minority who might not want to be imposed upon to provide everyone else their “rights”?

    The post that seems to to have gotten most of the porn hits is this one: http://citizentom.com/2012/06/06/16382/
    Note the title. From time to time I use the word “sex”, but I rarely bother with the word “gay”.

    Like

  7. joesix says:

    Even the most conservative estimates say over 5% of the population is somewhere on the gay spectrum. That means at least 1 in 20 people you know is gay. Your most homophobic acquaintances aren’t exempt either, as Pastor Ted Haggard, Pastor Paul Cameron, Dr. George Rekers, and Senator Larry Craig can all attest.

    I’ve already argued with you extensively about those other cans of worms, and I’ve come to accept the fact that you probably won’t swallow a word of what I’ve said until you have a son who comes out to you.

    Like

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Apparently these are your final arguments, and you are not going to comment on http://citizentom.com/2012/07/01/corrupted-by-our-supposed-generosity-part-4/.

      Shrug.

      Well, let’s deal with your arguments one at a time.

      1. Even the most conservative estimates say over 5% of the population is somewhere on the gay spectrum.

      I have heard people argue that 1 to 2 percent of the population is homosexual and others argue that it is 10 percent. What is it? I don’t know. I just know homosexuality is sinful and that sin is rather commonplace.

      Consider this passage from the Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-32&version=GNT

      What the Apostle Paul observed in that passage is that it is insane to put ourselves before God. That sort of insanity deserves special protection? I guess if the majority wants to sin it does.

      2. Your most homophobic acquaintances aren’t exempt either, as Pastor Ted Haggard, Pastor Paul Cameron, Dr. George Rekers, and Senator Larry Craig can all attest.

      Because other men have sinned, I am suppose to accept sin as okay? If other formerly respected men rob banks, are you going to insist that I copy that behavior too?

      3. I’ve already argued with you extensively about those other cans of worms, and I’ve come to accept the fact that you probably won’t swallow a word of what I’ve said until you have a son who comes out to you.

      If I had a relative who announced he or she is a homosexual, I would still love them. I just would not approve of their behavior. Were I to suddenly reverse course and approve of homosexuality just because my own situation (a homosexual relative), that would only prove that my faith in Jesus was too shallow.

      You might want to sit down with a good Bible commentary and read the Book of Job. When God allowed Satan to torment Job, Job understood that God had allowed it, but Job did not curse God. Instead, he sat in ashes, mourned, and prayed.

      Consider Job 1:12. That is when God gave Satan permission to torment Job.

      [12] And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

      And here is what John Wesley said (from http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=wes&b=18&c=1).

      Behold, … — It seems strange, that, God should give Satan such a permission as this. But he did it for his own glory, for the honour of Job, for the explanation of providence, and the encouragement of his afflicted people in all ages.

      For the honour of Job. Because Job glorified God — trusted in Him — God glorified Job and set Job up as an example for us. When we are confront by hardship, do not understand what is happening to us, and find our values tested; we should not abandon our belief in God. Instead, we should trust in God.

      Like

      • CT, way to hang tough with the truth and the light.
        In the US maybe 2% of males and 1% of women are homosexual or lesbian.

        A behavior should not be confused with a minority. Minorities of race, religion, ethnicity, or language offer clear lines of declination – and discrimination for those who do – based on facts.

        Sexual behaviors like adultery, incest, homosexuality and bestiality cut across cultures, religions, race, ethnicity etc. The per centages for involvement may vary culture to culture and sub-culture to sub-culture, but the behavior does not a “minority” of a class or protected persons.

        Like

  8. Citizen Tom says:

    JAB – Thanks.

    Like

Comments are closed.