Study: Same-Sex Couples Don't Make Go...

Study: Same-Sex Couples Don't Make Good Parents, LGBT Groups Fire Back

There are 159 comments on the EDGE story from Jun 13, 2012, titled Study: Same-Sex Couples Don't Make Good Parents, LGBT Groups Fire Back. In it, EDGE reports that:

A new research paper claims that the children of gay couples are worse off than kids raised by straight couples.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#149 Jul 7, 2012
GayResearchCenter wrote:
Here are some unquestionable sources:
http://1in6.org/the-1-in-6-statistic/
"
A 2005 study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, on San Diego Kaiser Permanente HMO members, reported that 16% of males were sexually abused by the age of 18.1 ...
Did you notice on the web site you posted (and have pasted from) that while claiming CDC authorship, the reference note doesn't list the CDC, but rather a non-juried publication?

In fact, in the entire article's supporting notes, only two of the cited sources are peer-reviewed, juried publications.

It's easy to be taken in by a list of citations and sources, and unless you have some academic and professional experience you can be hoodwinked pretty thoroughly. Even with citation from juried journals, it's possible to get an invalid impression if the person citing that source doesn't include and account for the peer reviews and countervailing research results.

A research project is not considered "reliable" unless it meets certain criteria in it's design and execution. It must also stand up to the classic "reliability values": Test-Retest, Inter-Test, and Inter-Testor reliabilities. For social science research there're also two more: Inter-regional and Inter-Cultural.

Most of the "studies" that one hears bandied around issues never meet and withstand the scrutiny all of these criteria.

(Just trying to free you from inordinate respect for lists of sources. You really DO have to do more than scratch the surface.)

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#150 Jul 7, 2012
The Barking Buck wrote:
<quoted text>
The thought of you.
So, you obsess about people whose words you see typed on Topix, but will never meet? And you think OTHER people have problems.

You poor dear.
The Barking Buck

Becket, MA

#151 Jul 7, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
By what measure would you think it right or normal? Would it take a visit from Jesus?
And what does the government have to do with it?
Time and again I read where homosexuals cannot determine right from wrong or normal, hard to believe. This is why you all need help, a lot of help. Take those in govt that think like you, with you. They make the laws, rules, regulations etc, very frightening. Arguing with a toddler, Sheesh!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#152 Jul 7, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>Did you notice on the web site you posted (and have pasted from) that while claiming CDC authorship, the reference note doesn't list the CDC, but rather a non-juried publication?

In fact, in the entire article's supporting notes, only two of the cited sources are peer-reviewed, juried publications.

It's easy to be taken in by a list of citations and sources, and unless you have some academic and professional experience you can be hoodwinked pretty thoroughly. Even with citation from juried journals, it's possible to get an invalid impression if the person citing that source doesn't include and account for the peer reviews and countervailing research results.

A research project is not considered "reliable" unless it meets certain criteria in it's design and execution. It must also stand up to the classic "reliability values": Test-Retest, Inter-Test, and Inter-Testor reliabilities. For social science research there're also two more: Inter-regional and Inter-Cultural.

Most of the "studies" that one hears bandied around issues never meet and withstand the scrutiny all of these criteria.

(Just trying to free you from inordinate respect for lists of sources. You really DO have to do more than scratch the surface.)
Thank you, this is very helpful!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#153 Jul 7, 2012
The Barking Buck wrote:
<quoted text>Time and again I read where homosexuals cannot determine right from wrong or normal, hard to believe. This is why you all need help, a lot of help. Take those in govt that think like you, with you. They make the laws, rules, regulations etc, very frightening. Arguing with a toddler, Sheesh!
Cite your sources on gays not knowing "right from wrong". This smacks of Fundamentalist "research".
The Barking Buck

Becket, MA

#154 Jul 7, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite your sources on gays not knowing "right from wrong". This smacks of Fundamentalist "research".
Most of your posts are a good example.
The Barking Buck

Becket, MA

#155 Jul 7, 2012
Which by the way is fundamental.
SMACK!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#156 Jul 8, 2012
The Barking Buck wrote:
<quoted text>Most of your posts are a good example.
So your post was pulled out of thin air.

Don't make bold claims if you cannot defend them.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#157 Jul 8, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
So your post was pulled out of thin air.
Don't make bold claims if you cannot defend them.
He wasn't making any claims.

He was engaging in blatant calumny.
The Barking Buck

Becket, MA

#158 Jul 8, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
He wasn't making any claims.
He was engaging in blatant calumny.
Some would say calling the kettle black. Start with the media!
All of them!

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#159 Jul 8, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>He wasn't making any claims.

He was engaging in blatant calumny.
Everyone wants rant, nobody wants to debate. Lazy homophobia.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#160 Jul 8, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone wants rant, nobody wants to debate. Lazy homophobia.
Would you like to debate whether he was "making a claim" or "engaging in blatant calumny" ?
Corn Off The Cob

Becket, MA

#161 Jul 8, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like to debate whether he was "making a claim" or "engaging in blatant calumny" ?
Incest and homosexuality, to varying degrees are similar. Some would suggest homosexuality to be less desirable.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#162 Jul 9, 2012
Corn Off The Cob wrote:
<quoted text>
Incest and homosexuality, to varying degrees are similar. Some would suggest homosexuality to be less desirable.
5 assertions:

Incest and homosexuality are similar.
Their similarity is variable.
There are "some" rather than "none" or "one" or "all".
Some make suggestions.
It is suggested that homosexuality is less desirable than incest.

Now prove and support them.
Little Blue Alien

Becket, MA

#163 Jul 9, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
5 assertions:
Incest and homosexuality are similar.
Their similarity is variable.
There are "some" rather than "none" or "one" or "all".
Some make suggestions.
It is suggested that homosexuality is less desirable than incest.
Now prove and support them.
There are many studies and statistics for you to educate yourself on incest and homosexuality. Time and time again people post legitimate studies and statistics only to be continually ridiculed by homosexuals as fictitious or biased. A clear sign of denial or some mental disorder.
It's one thing when the general public is blatantly being dumbed down, but another when it is reflective in all things professional. Generations of moral destruction to continue, statistics don't lie, people do.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#164 Jul 9, 2012
Little Blue Alien wrote:
<quoted text>
There are many studies and statistics for you to educate yourself on incest and homosexuality. Time and time again people post legitimate studies and statistics only to be continually ridiculed by homosexuals as fictitious or biased. A clear sign of denial or some mental disorder.
It's one thing when the general public is blatantly being dumbed down, but another when it is reflective in all things professional. Generations of moral destruction to continue, statistics don't lie, people do.
Some do "ridicule", that's true.

Mostly the "studies" aren't really.

For a study to be valid it must be properly constructed and certain methodologies employed. Then, it must be published for review to a JURIED journal/publication, where it is PEER REVIEWED by the professional community in that discipline. This can take time. It will be peer reviewed for the factors mentioned above, but also for what are called the "3 reliabilities" : Test-Retest, Inter-Test, and Inter-Testor reliability. In the Social Sciences, there are also Inter-Regional and Inter-Cultural.

All the above are required for studies, and their results, to be considered valid.

Most of the sources provided in support fail in one or more of these criterion.

The people presenting these "studies" presumably attended research coursework at their colleges and universities.

While THEY should know better, it is understandable for the average layman to not understand what gives Social Science (in fact any science) research it's credibility, and it's results value.
Brian

Houston, TX

#165 Jul 9, 2012
Barry Loves Devil Dogs wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it with you guys talking about poo-poo and projecting it on us. Is it a monkey thing or what?
Absolutely frightening, and disgusting!
Stay away from my posts from now on.
Your posts are shit! Full of lies and distortion. Just like a true christian republican.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#166 Jul 10, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>Would you like to debate whether he was "making a claim" or "engaging in blatant calumny" ?
lol Not really.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#167 Jul 10, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>Some do "ridicule", that's true.

Mostly the "studies" aren't really.

For a study to be valid it must be properly constructed and certain methodologies employed. Then, it must be published for review to a JURIED journal/publication, where it is PEER REVIEWED by the professional community in that discipline. This can take time. It will be peer reviewed for the factors mentioned above, but also for what are called the "3 reliabilities" : Test-Retest, Inter-Test, and Inter-Testor reliability. In the Social Sciences, there are also Inter-Regional and Inter-Cultural.

All the above are required for studies, and their results, to be considered valid.

Most of the sources provided in support fail in one or more of these criterion.

The people presenting these "studies" presumably attended research coursework at their colleges and universities.

While THEY should know better, it is understandable for the average layman to not understand what gives Social Science (in fact any science) research it's credibility, and it's results value.
Excellent point. It is actually pretty easy to produce sources to support any kind if crackpot idea as long enough crackpots believe it. And the ability to vet sources of information is not a widely known skill.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of Texas at Austin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 18 min Rose_NoHo 81
News A federal judge shot down 3 University of Texas... Fri Ben Ghazi 2
News Deep In The Heart Of Texas, Muslim Music Blossoms (Mar '15) Aug 15 don Juan 7
News Texas concealed carry on campus law kicks in as... Aug 11 Joe Balls 110
News Donald Trump - Trump: Nearly '180,000 illegal i... Jul '16 HOLLA ISABELLA 2
News Suspect in UT homicide arrested Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
News Police arrest 17-year-old in Beaverton woman's ... Apr '16 Go Blue Forever 1
More from around the web