My faulty logic? I quoted the author of the study. HIS words, not mine. HIS logic, not mine.<quoted text>
So, instead of using the authors words in the spirit that they were written. IE: not to rubber stamp ALL SSM parents as cut from the same cloth, you choose to misinterpret the author and use his words to discredit him. If he has contradicted himself, then his disclaimer is also not to be trusted, but he was not invalidating his own work, so you cannot, either. His work stands and his results show the majority of these children to be damaged, but not all. So he does not disagree with Kimare, he tries to give credit to some of these parents, and you try to use faulty logic to bolster your assertion, however false it is.
Nice try. But zero for results.
My logic says his study is bogus. The data does not support his conclusions. Anyone with even a beginners knowledge of research methods can easily spot the lack of validity in his work. For Regnerus’s comparison even to have begun to be valid, he would either have had to compare 1) stable same-sex-headed households to i) stable heterosexual-headed households, or 2) unstable heterosexual households to ii) unstable mixed-orientation-headed households.
"There is no need for any further discussion as to whether Regnerus made a sociologically valid comparison; he did not. This issue alone is the beginning and the end of whether his published study is valid.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Nathaniel Frank said that Regnerus:“fails the most basic requirement of social science research — assessing causation by holding all other variables constant.”