Study: children fare better in traditional mom-dad families, page 6


Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 4-9-2012 @ 10:52 AM by meeneecat
Originally posted by halfoldman
I'm just a bit confused, because the study doesn't study gay parenting, it studies broken homes.
edit on 13-6-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


Yes, thank you. How many people here don't understand that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. Minority families, women also have higher rates of economic hardship, poorer heath outcomes, depression, etc. But we don't say stuff like blacks, hispanics, women, are not fit to raise children (a. because it's not true and b. would be a horribly racist thing to say). What we do know is that society has been discriminating against certain people for centuries upon centuries and so obviously it's going to be much much harder to get a leg up in a world that is hellbent on being a bigoted asshole toward you. This of course is obvious to most people who are not looking for ways to justify their homophobia (Though I assume these would be the same types who would have supported anti-miscegenation laws back in the day when rabid racism was still fashionable, since today it's rabid homophobia, we get comments like those here). The fact that the outcome of this study is being interpreted as "gays are unfit parents/unnatural" as opposed to centuries of systematic discrimination of gay families of course is a prime example of confirmation bias. In fact if we just follow the money, you would learn that the two sponsors of this study were conservative organizations, and the author himself a Christian who is "anti-gay-marriage". At least the author was honest enough to admit to this.
"Regnerus said funding from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, which he acknowledged are known for supporting conservative causes."


And to the confirmation bias:
"He also noted in his paper that different outcomes for children of same-sex vs. heterosexual parents could be in part due to a lack of social support for same-sex parents, stigmatizing of gay parents."
link

And it seems many of the commenters here screaming "SEE!!!! It's UNNATURAL!!!" seem just as happy to ignore all the evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom (hundreds of examples which have shown evolutionary benefit) as well as the evolutionary benefit in humans. (Oh wait, I forgot, most of you probably don't believe in evolution to begin with, nvm :lol


reply posted on 4-9-2012 @ 11:22 AM by charles1952
reply to post by meeneecat

I may be misinterpreting your post, but I don't see the study the same way you seem to. As Regnerus writes, his purpose was to see if the current claims that the children of same sex couples show no difference from, or are better off than, the children of heterosexual couples, were true. Certainly you've seen those claims?

His study was not intended to show causation, he includes that in his report.

And the idea that his report was biased falls from lack of evidence. University and outside experts examined the paper because of claims of bias, and found none. Eighteen sociologists from around the country signed a letter saying complimentary things about the study and its data.

Perhaps if you look at it in that light, you'll be more favorably disposed to it.


reply posted on 4-9-2012 @ 06:05 PM by meeneecat
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by meeneecat

As Regnerus writes, his purpose was to see if the current claims that the children of same sex couples show no difference from, or are better off than, the children of heterosexual couples, were true.
His study was not intended to show causation, he includes that in his report.


I will explain in more detail. If as you say, he is testing whether the outcomes for children of same sex couples are better, the same, or worse than children of opposite sex couples. So he is trying to observe the effect of a variable A (family structure) on various outcomes (factors such as income, health, employment, etc.) He is concluding that there is a relationship between variable A and statistically significant outcomes. The conclusion being "same sex" ---> "(in general) children are worse off" / "opposite sex" ---> "(in general) children are better off". In order to have come to this conclusion the author assumes a cause/effect relationship...if he doesn't, then there is no way to have come to this conclusion (see below, confounding variable: the gorilla in the room)


Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by meeneecat

And the idea that his report was biased falls from lack of evidence. University and outside experts examined the paper because of claims of bias, and found none. Eighteen sociologists from around the country signed a letter saying complimentary things about the study and its data.

Perhaps if you look at it in that light, you'll be more favorably disposed to it.


Has nothing to do with "looking at it in the light". Which is an unusual thing to say because that's exactly what the purpose of my post was, i.e. not blindly accepting a given conclusion and looking more closely at some of the factors that concerned me about this study. namely A) Funding B) Confirmation bias C) Confounding variables. Any study that is funded by politically motivated organization should be looked at critically. That is not to say the methodology is poor, but it does cast suspicion on a particular scientist if he/she is taking money from highly partisan groups with political motivations. This would be true of any left/right, progressive, conservative funded studies. I am also suspicious when an author investigates a highly political topic that he/she also has strong convictions about, again, more room for confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
link

The title of this post is "Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families". This is the conclusion that was given by much of the media, the author of the study and the OP of this thread. Again, this conclusion (from the article) based on the findings of 4 variables which showed a higher correlation in same sex families (out of many other which showed no such statistical significance):1) gov.t benefits, 2) depression/suicidiality, 3) low income, 4) unemployment. The author concludes that "same sex relationship" is the reason for these variations. But as I said before, this correlation does not mean that the "same sex relationship" cause or had any influence on these results. I tried glossing over an example using race. Take the same study, except compare heterosexual white families with heterosexual minority families. We would expect to end up with similar results: i.e. for minority families: lower income, higher rates of unemployment, depression, gov't benefits. (exception: gov't benefits is debatable), we know from gov't data and past studies, that these are true, in general minority families suffer more socio economic hardships than white families. Why? Systematic discrimination and racism that these groups have been subject to for centuries (same applies to homophobia). But again, the correlation is not "because they are gay" or "because they are black/hispanic/etc.", it is because of discrimination: institutionalized employment discrimination, pay discrimination, judicial discrimination, etc. etc. This variable is so potent, it cannot reasonably be "isolated" from family structure in order to obtain a true result.

Of course there will always be those people who hate/fear gay people. They are like the racists of yesteryear. Luckily times change and most people smarten up, those who feel the need to hate and discriminate will slowly fall behind the times caught up on the wrong side of history.


reply posted on 4-9-2012 @ 10:29 PM by charles1952
reply to post by meeneecat

Dear meeneecat,

I'm afraid I will not be able to do justice to your thorough and thoughtful post.

First, I do not claim responsibility for the OP or, really, any thing else in the thread. I came across the Regnerus study, posted the link here, and added some thoughts.

The link I posted to the entire study, brings one to something entitled
" How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study."
His study explicity refuses to find correlation, and so did I. There is nothing in that title indicating a criticism of homosexuality, or causation.

I believe, if you don't mind the repitition, that he saw how the academic world has changed from thinking that same-sex families were harmful, to there being no difference, to now, a movement claiming that the results are better. He then wanted to see what validity there was to those various opinions. His null hypothesis, I suppose, was that there was no significant difference between the adult children of same-sex families and those from the "Traditional" family. His conclusion was that his null hypothesis was false, there was a significant difference.

His paper was investigated thoroughly and approved by two different groups of sociologists, and experts from within and without the University. His data collection was done by an outside firm. There is no evidence I've seen of confirmation bias.

He wanted to see if there was a difference, he ran a good study to find out, and it turns out there is a difference, and it's not a good one. That's all. There's no prejudice, no judgment of same-sex relationships, just the collection and analysis of, possibly, the best data available on the subject.

There is no homophobia here, nothing "behind the times," no hate. I'm unable to understand why you think there is, if I'm understanding you correctly.

With respect,
Charles1952
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^