Huge anti-gay marriage protest march in Paris

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dream on fatboy, i never make a retraction unless its warranted and then i readily do, easily and with humility as if resigning a chess game. Evidence is evidence until proven otherwise. Now while you Angles may wallop all the cods you like, simply stating that something does not constitute evidence is not good enough, no siree, even producing count ...[text shortened]... the evidence yourself and subject it to falsification, what is left standing, can be evaluated.

you do realize what you posted wasnt the actual paper dont you? what was it you posted?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you do realize what you posted wasnt the actual paper dont you? what was it you posted?

paper to what?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
paper to what?

'new study on homosexual parents tops all previous research'

Originally posted by stellspalfie
'new study on homosexual parents tops all previous research'

as sound as study as was ever compiled.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as sound as study as was ever compiled.

did you read the study?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
did you read the study?

I read the article that i cited, up to a point. Once i realised it confirmed by deepest darkest fears, i posted it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I read the article that i cited, up to a point. Once i realised it confirmed by deepest darkest fears, i posted it.

so you do realize that the article you read is somebodies opinion of the papers findings rather than the paper its self.



...and if you havent read the actual papers you have no idea what conclusion the researcher came to. right? you are trusting the article writer to give an accurate review. right?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so you do realize that the article you read is somebodies opinion of the papers findings rather than the paper its self.



...and if you havent read the actual papers you have no idea what conclusion the researcher came to. right? you are trusting the article writer to give an accurate review. right?

are you saying that statistics cited were someone opinion, oh dear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you saying that statistics cited were someone opinion, oh dear.

the way the statistics are presented can be misleading. what we think the statistics prove may be wrong if we dont know exactly what the statistics were gathered to prove. which we can find by reading the actual paper.

you should be able to tell me what the statistics prove, using your reasoning you should draw the same conclusion as the writer of the paper.

what do the statistics prove robbie?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
the way the statistics are presented can be misleading. what we think the statistics prove may be wrong if we dont know exactly what the statistics were gathered to prove. which we can find by reading the actual paper.

you should be able to tell me what the statistics prove, using your reasoning you should draw the same conclusion as the writer of the paper.

what do the statistics prove robbie?

no wait a minute, you have stated that the citation refers only to opinions, i am asking you, are the statistics cited in the article accurate or are they not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no wait a minute, you have stated that the citation refers only to opinions, i am asking you, are the statistics cited in the article accurate or are they not?

i dont want to be evasive, so bare with me. there are several issues with the statistics themselves. which if you read the paper and any interview with mark regnerus he freely admits the difficulty he had.

the question are they accurate as two meanings.

1. are they accurate within the frame of the maths, so if 50 people are sampled then 25 have a common factor, its accurate to say 50% had the common factor.
in this instance the stats are accurate (in the paper).

2. are the stats gathered and compared in an accurate way. meaning, were all the 50 people suitable to be asked the same question.
in this instance the stats were not accurate(in the paper) as admitted by mark regnerus in the paper and in many interviews (i can provide links if you wish).

the problem you have, is a 3rd party taking stats from all over the paper, that are not always from the same studies and putting them together in an article and adding his own opinion on what they mean.

in this instance i would say some of the stats are accurate, some are not, but the conclusions drawn in the article completely misrepresent what the stats prove.

so the answer is both yes and no. i there fore apologize and retract my statement that 100% of the article is opinion. some of the numbers are correct, its the words around them that are wrong.
.............................

so, robbie. what do the statistics in the article prove?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i dont want to be evasive, so bare with me. there are several issues with the statistics themselves. which if you read the paper and any interview with mark regnerus he freely admits the difficulty he had.

the question are they accurate as two meanings.

1. are they accurate within the frame of the maths, so if 50 people are sampled then 25 have ...[text shortened]... rong.
.............................

so, robbie. what do the statistics in the article prove?

this is argumentum ad infinitum, they were accurate when complied, were they not? No need to apologise, we are human and aberration is part of our nature. I would say that they foment serious reservations about homosexual adoption.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is argumentum ad infinitum, they were accurate when complied, were they not? No need to apologise, we are human and aberration is part of our nature. I would say that they foment serious reservations about homosexual adoption.

you say they are accurate when compiled even though the man who wrote the paper confirms that they are not? can you understand why this is makes your statement rather bizarre?


I would say that they foment serious reservations about homosexual adoption.

this is why you should be more careful about trusting any old site that supports your views.

the paper was not about homosexual adoption. it was looking at children who had gay parents. the majority of the studies were from parents who had lived as hetrosexuals in a different sex marriage. in nearly all of the homosexual cases the child had spent less than 3 years living with their father, as their parents were divorced.

there was more evidence from lesbian mothers as they were much more likely to win full custody.

the problem with the negative findings of lesbian mothers is where the main problems lie. the majority of the lesbian mothers were divorced, the study compared lesbian mothers results with married hetrosexual results.

the married hetrosexual results were much better. does this mean hetro is better than lesbian? no, and this is where the paper receives a lot of criticism (from his work colleagues, his university, experts in the field) - he didnt include the stats for hetrosexual divorced parents. he needed to compare divorced lesbians with divorced hetros to make sure the issues were not more about the effects of divorce.

to be fair to mark regnerus he admits to the studies failings and blames the lack of numbers to be able to give an accurate study.
................................................................................................

here are some quotes and questions answered by mark regnerus.

"Q: Some might say this study reveals evidence that gay and lesbian parents would benefit from access to the relative security of marriage. What are your thoughts on that?

A: It’s possible. How gay marriages would function for children is an empirical question, but it’s only answerable in the future, after ample numbers of cases have accrued, after considerable time has expired, and when the respondents are old enough to speak and reflect about it, as the respondents in my study have.

Q: So are gay parents worse than traditional parents?

A: The study is not about parenting per se. There are no doubt excellent gay parents and terrible straight parents. The study is, among other things, about outcome differences between young adults raised in households in which a parent had a same-sex relationship and those raised by their own parents in intact families. It’s not about sexual orientation

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you say they are accurate when compiled even though the man who wrote the paper confirms that they are not? can you understand why this is makes your statement rather bizarre?


[b]I would say that they foment serious reservations about homosexual adoption.

this is why you should be more careful about trusting any old site that supports your v ...[text shortened]... and those raised by their own parents in intact families. It’s not about sexual orientation[/b][/b]

meh, its all quite speculative, i prefer hard facts and scientific data.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
meh, its all quite speculative, i prefer hard facts and scientific data.

speculative? in what way?

i prefer hard facts and scientific data, thats why ive pulled you up on this as it provides no hard facts.


still not prepared to admit you misunderstood the paper? or that the article site you used misrepresented the data? are you not prepared to admit the paper proves nothing relating to the questions asked about effects of gay adoption?