What might be said of Bush's spirituality

Originally posted by TheSkipper
You may not have argued the point on religious grounds but you also have not provided any, even anecdotal, evidence that the average homosexual couple is not as capable as the average heterosexual couple at raising a child.

I'm not even asking you to provide a link to a study or anything...what i would like to know is have you ever read or seen anything to back up your idea or is it just an assumption on your part?

TheSkipper

Studies made to date suggest gay couples provide just as stable and nurturing an environment as straight couples.

No real surprise there.

-JC

Originally posted by TheSkipper
You may not have argued the point on religious grounds but you also have not provided any, even anecdotal, evidence that the average homosexual couple is not as capable as the average heterosexual couple at raising a child.

I'm not even asking you to provide a link to a study or anything...what i would like to know is have you ever read or seen anything to back up your idea or is it just an assumption on your part?

TheSkipper

Anecdotal evidence, by definition, does not tell us very much about averages.

While I have seen many studies that claim that children raised by same-sex couples do as well as children raised by traditionally married couples, virtually every single one of them had serious methodological flaws that mean that, from a scientific perspective, their conclusions are simply not supported by the data (c.f. Lerner & Nagai, 2001). OTOH, there is plenty of reliable research to show that children face a higher risk of psychological stress, sexual abuse and neglect in homosexual households (c.f. Rekers, 2004). Further, homosexual relationships are significantly less stable than heterosexual relationships, which exposes the child to the risk of a broken home (ibid.). Finally, (and this is the point I raised) we have decades of research that shows the crucial role played by having parental role-models of both sexes in the household (ibid.) - which is really just common sense.

EDIT: Dr. Rekers's study argues that studies that support same-sex adoption appear to deliberately exclude metrics indicating psychological stress and abuse (in addition to largely using biased samples, of course). I find that very interesting.

Originally posted by Churlant
Studies made to date suggest gay couples provide just as stable and nurturing an environment as straight couples.

Actually they don't. Look up the survey No Basis by Lerner and Nagai (2002).

EDIT: The majority of studies that claim this "cherry-picked" stable same-sex couples for their study - making their claim worthless. This isn't science - it's propaganda.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually they don't. Look up the survey No Basis by Lerner and Nagai (2002).

EDIT: The majority of studies that claim this "cherry-picked" stable same-sex couples for their study - making their claim worthless. This isn't science - it's propaganda.

Actually, they do. Then again, we could get into a "do not - do too" argument and waste each other's time, or we could leave it at that. As usual I have no interest in "debating" your faith except to say your "researchers" are anything but unbiased.

Preparing a survey for organizations such as 'The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of America' doesn't impress me.

Why not just pull up a NARTH.org credit and be done with it?

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Actually, they do. Then again, we could get into a "do not - do too" argument and waste each other's time, or we could leave it at that. As usual I have no interest in "debating" your faith except to say your "researchers" are anything but unbiased.

Preparing a survey for organizations such as 'The Marriage Law Project at The Catholic University of Ameri n't impress me.

Why not just pull up a NARTH.org credit and be done with it?

-JC

Your response is a perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy - attack the messenger because you don't like the message.

Btw, did you actually read the paper?

EDIT: And do you have any serious objections, from a social sciences research perspective, to the study?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your response is a perfect example of the ad hominem fallacy - attack the messenger because you don't like the message.

Btw, did you actually read the paper?

EDIT: And do you have any serious objections, from a social sciences research perspective, to the study?

Not entirely accurate. I do not like the messenger because they are not proceeding from a neutral perspective. Ironically you point out my attack is ad hominem apparently without realizing No Basis itself is one very long (though very intelligently-written) ad hominem attack.

As to the study itself. I object to the variables used to determine the "flaws" found in the 49 studies mentioned. I have no doubt there were flaws in the original research, but no more or less than any other study on any other topic. Most of the variables examined are highly subjective, which obviously gives a lot of room for Lerner and Nagai to equivocate.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
Not entirely accurate. I do not like the messenger because they are not proceeding from a neutral perspective. Ironically you point out my attack is ad hominem apparently without realizing No Basis itself is one very long (though very intelligently-written) ad hominem attack.

As to the study itself. I object to the variables used to determi hly subjective, which obviously gives a lot of room for Lerner and Nagai to equivocate.

-JC

How many researchers supporting same-sex adoption are proceeding from a "neutral perspective"?

The whole point of scientific research is that it really doesn't matter what your perspective is - if your raw data and analytic methods are sound then your conclusion will be valid.

Also, you are wrong when you say that 'No Basis' is an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem argument goes:

1. A makes an argument X.
2. A is a disagreeable, or otherwise objectionable, person.
3. Therefore X is invalid.

Note: This is what you're claiming about the study - it's a textbook ad hominem.

Lerner & Nagai, on the other hand, argue:

1. Study S concludes X.
2. S uses faulty research methods that affects the validity of X.
3. X cannot be concluded from S.

This is an entirely valid argument! There is nothing ad hominem about it.

Your last paragraph makes it rather evident that you haven't actually read No Basis. The majority of the literature survey deals with methodological errors in sampling used for the 49 studies (e.g. biased samples, no null hypothesis etc.). The actual subjectivity of variables measured is a relatively minor objection.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How many researchers supporting same-sex adoption are proceeding from a "neutral perspective"?

The whole point of scientific research is that it really doesn't matter what your perspective is - if your raw data and analytic methods are sound then your conclusion will be valid.

Also, you are wrong when you say that 'No Basis' is an ...[text shortened]... etc.). The actual subjectivity of variables measured is a relatively minor objection.

When I refer to "subjective variables", I go no further than a few pages in:


Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:

Unclear hypotheses and research designs
Mission or inadequate comparison groups
Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants
Samples too small to yield meaningful results
Missing or inadequate statistical analysis


Some of these are valid objective measurements, some are not.

As mentioned, I'm not debating your faith. You have faith that individuals with a religious agenda can provide accurate and unbiased collection and analysis of data. I do not. Additionally I do not believe that a study which is actually commissioned by an anti-gay marriage organization is capable of being neutral in perspective.

In the end we can both post a dozen links to a dozen studies or reviews of studies (or reviews of reviews of studies.. ahem) supporting each other's claims ...

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/02/critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards/

http://www.equip.org/free/JAH050.pdf

etc

so forth

...and we will be no further than we are now - disagreement.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
When I refer to "subjective variables", I go no further than a few pages in:


Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:

Unclear hypotheses and research designs
Mission or inadequate comparison groups
Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements
Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other parti ...[text shortened]...

etc

so forth

...and we will be no further than we are now - disagreement.

-JC

1. Which of the criteria mentioned do you not consider "valid objective measurements" and why?

2. Besides actually repeating the same ad hominem attack you said earlier, do you have any valid objections against their conclusions?

3. How is the Marriage Law Project "anti-gay"? Do you think that arguments are won by simply labelling the opposing party homophobes?

4. Thanks for providing a link to Ampersand's (Barry Deutsch's) article. Now that is another classic ad hominem - all it establishes (if the allegations made in it are true - and I suspect a few aren't) is that Lerner and Nagai have not adhered to the high standards they postulated in No Basis in their own past works. So what? Doesn't mean those standards are wrong. Doesn't make their arguments invalid either.

(Can't open the second link, btw - will have to try from home)


I'm sorry, the only reason we continue to disagree is because you refuse to make a single logical argument against the study. All you're offering me is prejudice against the authors because their study was sponsored by a conservative organisation (so what? if the shoe were on the other foot would you reject a liberal paper so easily? Do you see me arguing "Oh that's what you'd expect a liberal to say - therefore it's false"?).

Originally posted by lucifershammer

I'm sorry, the only reason we continue to disagree is because you refuse to make a single [b]logical argument against the study. All you're offering me is prejudice against the authors because their study was sponsored by a conservative organisation (so what? if the shoe were on the other foot would you reject a liberal paper so easily?) - and that's just ad hominem.[/b]

We continue to disagree because we simply do not agree. If this study didn't exist, we would still disagree.

And yes, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would not validate a liberal paper because its conclusions were comforting to my perspective. I have refused to do so in the past, will not do so in the future. I find nothing helpful in throwing my respect behind "research" or organizations which seek science through conclusions rather than conclusions through science - as it should be.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
We continue to disagree because we simply do not agree. If this study didn't exist, we would still disagree.

And yes, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would not validate a liberal paper because its conclusions were comforting to my perspective. I have done so in the past, will do so in the future. I find nothing helpful in throwing my respect behind science through conclusions rather than conclusions through science - as it should be.

-JC

I take it then that you refuse to objectively assess the content of this study? Your sole defence is "It's funded by a biased source, therefore it's wrong"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I take it then that you refuse to objectively assess the content of this study? Your sole defence is "It's funded by a biased source, therefore it's wrong"?

EDIT: I wonder whether you will apply the same standard the next time you read about some new medical study. After all, the vast majority of pharmaceutical and medical research is funded by drug companies.

I've already told you my objections. "Subjective" is the word I used to describe the "methodological errors" being claimed in the study. What will happen is I say 'X claim is subjective', then you say 'No it isn't.' Repeat... that's called "ad nauseam", since we're keeping track of such things. Our string of back-and-forth is already ridiculously large enough without adding to it unnecessarily.

Not to mention you making me repeat myself... yes, I apply the same standard to medical studies.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I've already told you my objections. "Subjective" is the word I used to describe the "methodological errors" being claimed in the study. What will happen is I say 'X claim is subjective', then you say 'No it isn't.' Repeat... that's called "ad nauseam", since we're keeping track of such things. Our string of back-and-forth is already ridiculously large enou ...[text shortened]... ing me repeat myself... yes, I apply the same standard to medical studies.

-JC

Be specific, then. Which criteria (of the ones you cited yourself) do you believe are "subjective" and why?

Note: The paper itself makes a case for each of those criteria and why they affect the validity of the conclusions drawn from any study that does not meet them.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Be specific, then. Which criteria (of the ones you cited yourself) do you believe are "subjective" and why?

Note: The paper itself makes a case for each of those criteria and why they affect the validity of the conclusions drawn from any study that does not meet them.

I admit that I have not read any of these studies yet (I'm supposed to be working) but I do find it interesting that the study you cite seems only interested in critiquing the studies that came to conclusions they did not care for rather than doing a study of the quality of homosexual parenting skills themselves.

Do you know of a study with results that support your opinion in the matter?

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I admit that I have not read any of these studies yet (I'm supposed to be working) but I do find it interesting that the study you cite seems only interested in critiquing the studies that came to conclusions they did not care for rather than doing a study of the quality of homosexual parenting skills themselves.

Do you know of a study with results that support your opinion in the matter?

TheSkipper

That's because the Lerner-Nagai paper is a literature survey; i.e. a survey of existing research in the field. It's an established genre of scientific publication and one that's invaluable to researchers.

The Rekers study mentioned (http://www.narth.com/docs/rekers.html) is also a literature survey, but aggregates the results of the various studies into a unified argument.