Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights - Page 59

cheesehead · 2012-06-15, 02:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I'm interested to see if you can demonstrate your guess that somehow the full test of the article demonstrates "fewer family problems." Please demonstrate that claim.

I've just signed up for Wiley Online Library access.

However, as a person not affiliated with an institutional member, I cannot view the full text except at a terminal at some authorized institution.^*

Wiley will grant me 24-hour online access from my home terminal to the abstract (not the full text) for $35. I'm not sure how that abstract would differ from the one I've already seen for free at the link given in my earlier post.

- - -

^* From the Terms and Conditions of Use:

Quote:

Walk-in Users from the general public or business invitees may also be permitted by the Licensee to access Wiley Online Library from designated terminals with a Licensee-controlled IP address. These designated terminals shall be physically located in libraries or similar physical premises directly controlled by the Licensee.

- - - -

Added:

I'll use this as an opportunity to keep my brain flexible by trying something new, or at least not done recently. The last time I was in a university library was more than three decades ago, and I was there as a student of that university then.

A general public walking-in we will go ...
A general public walking-in we will go ...
Heigh ho, etc.

Zeta-Flux · 2012-06-15, 03:28

cheesehead,

Definitely don't spend money trying to get a copy of the paper to satisfy my request. If the local library doesn't have access, you might try emailing one of the authors, but I wouldn't take it farther than that.

Good hunting,
Zeta-Flux

cheesehead · 2012-06-15, 19:43

First, you challenge me to "Please demonstrate that ~~claim~~[sic] guess." Then when I outline a plan for doing so, you want to discourage me? ? ? :-D

I could benefit from the mental and physical exercise, so I intend to proceed.

Xyzzy · 2012-06-18, 18:32

We have attached a letter that is perhaps vaguely related to this topic. We did not know where else to put it.

Brian-E · 2012-06-18, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

We have attached a letter that is perhaps vaguely related to this topic. We did not know where else to put it.

The erudite Dr. Laura Schlesinger will doubtless have just as much to say about owning slaves from neighbouring countries, sacrificing bulls in your back yard, and the like, as she does about homosexuality. It's strange though: so far I've never seen her reply to these innocent questions even though that letter to her was written a few years ago.

Great stuff.

By the way, the cabaret duo Kit and the Widow also did a great send-up of Leviticus in one of their songs, on similar lines as in that letter and equally witty.

LaurV · 2012-06-19, 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

We have attached a letter that is perhaps vaguely related to this topic. We did not know where else to put it.

Hm? What should I do with a Canadian?

Better... Yeaahh... I wanna own a Russian!

And ask him to dance kazatchok all day...

Moreno · 2012-08-30, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Speaking of methodological flaws in previous studies: new study challenges established view and is gay parenting bad for kids?

These two are really good articles on such a complicated topic.
Thanks for sharing!
I personally don't have a vivid point on this question. From the one hand, I guess people can do anything unless it badly affects me and from the other hand, what if it affects my kids? I wouldn't be really glad to have a gay son or daughter... Not that I would reject them but I would lack the feeling of being proud for my family. I hope it doesn't insult anyone, it's just my opinion.

Brian-E · 2012-08-30, 11:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moreno

These two are really good articles on such a complicated topic.
Thanks for sharing!
I personally don't have a vivid point on this question. From the one hand, I guess people can do anything unless it badly affects me and from the other hand, what if it affects my kids? I wouldn't be really glad to have a gay son or daughter... Not that I would reject them but I would lack the feeling of being proud for my family. I hope it doesn't insult anyone, it's just my opinion.

Here's another good article, but who's taking that Regnerus study of a few months ago seriously now anyway? It's been widely debunked.

I'm fascinated, though, by your statement that you would lack the feeling of being proud of your family if you had a gay son or daughter. Is it possible for you to elaborate on that, without getting more personal than you want to be? Whyever should it affect how proud you feel?

Zeta-Flux · 2012-08-30, 14:41

Brian-E,

An article in the New Yorker (of all places) is not the right venue to show that the article has been "widely debunked." And it hasn't.

A more accurate statement is the following: The claim (not made by Regnerus in his study, but mostly by newspapers and conservative commentators) that the Regnerus paper says something concrete on the politics of gay parenting, is false. The only thing it does establish on that front is that previous studies contained major faults due to self-selected samples and small sample sizes.

More specifically, Regnerus himself numerous times (in interviews, in his own paper, and on his blog) has pointed out the necessary limitations in a study which is based on a random sample of the population. The main complaint I've seen is that he groups all people (regardless of other issues, like divorce, etc...) into a single group based on whether their parents ever experienced same-sex relations. The reason for this choice was not political, but an expedient since the number of people interviewed would have had to increase 10 fold to get a sample size large enough to distinguish between groups further.

As Regnerus himself says, the data came from children who are only now becoming adults, and so the data might be explained as a lack of gay adoption in the past. Or the fact that most children of gay children had their parents divorced (for obvious reasons, since surrogacy was not common), and that divorce is the factor that is the negative. And so forth, and so on.

But when people try to make this data political, and find fault with Regnerus not for what he has said or what the study says, but rather how others have interpreted the paper, that is wrong.

[At the very least, if you claim the paper has been debunked you should show it not from biased news articles, but from professional refereed articles. And you should include Regnerus' response if he has one.]

----

Moreno,

You say: "I guess people can do anything unless it badly affects me and from the other hand, what if it affects my kids?"

It seems a common theme nowadays that laws should only be based on provable harm. If it doesn't hurt me, then it isn't wrong. And that seems a reasonable enough rule (maybe not for morality as a whole, but for the laws by which we are governed it seems okay).

The problem is, sometimes harms are hard to measure. At the time, a majority of Americans thought that no-fault divorce would not be harmful to anyone. It was a decision between two grown adults after all. It was a private decision. But, as many studies have shown, the effects have been very negative.

Now, we are told that gay marriage will similarly have only a positive effect on the population. I'm skeptical. In countries where gay marriage is allowed, I haven't heard of the family structure becoming stronger. What I have seen, here in America, is a push to make surrogacy more prevalent. And that is not a private decision, but affects the child created in significant ways. I'm not ready to abandon the idea that a child fares much better (in nearly all cases) if raised by the father and mother in a stable marriage. I don't want to legitimize a process whereby children are created outside the bonds of marriage.

Brian-E · 2012-08-31, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

More specifically, Regnerus himself numerous times (in interviews, in his own paper, and on his blog) has pointed out the necessary limitations in a study which is based on a random sample of the population. The main complaint I've seen is that he groups all people (regardless of other issues, like divorce, etc...) into a single group based on whether their parents ever experienced same-sex relations. The reason for this choice was not political, but an expedient since the number of people interviewed would have had to increase 10 fold to get a sample size large enough to distinguish between groups further.

It would have been clearer if he had stated this in the summary introduction to his study. This summary, quoted in entirety below (with my emphasis), suggests that the study is looking at people who were raised by, or spent time with, same-sex parents. That is what has been debunked, and if Regnerus himself has acknowledged the "limitation" he should make it clear in the summary.

Quote:

The New Family Structure Study (NFSS) is a comparative project which seeks to understand how young adults (~ages 18-39) raised by same-sex parents fare on a variety of social, emotional, and relational outcomes when compared with young adults raised in homes with their married biological parents, those raised with a step-parent, and those raised in homes with two adoptive parents. In particular, the NFSS aims to collect new data in order to evaluate whether biological relatedness and the gender of young adults' parents are associated with important social, emotional, and relational outcomes. Moreover, because there have been no large-scale studies of young adults who have spent time in households with two parents of the same sex, the NFSS seeks to field exactly such a study. Accordingly, the NFSS would provide scholars with an up-to-date portrait of the association between a variety of different family structure background experiences and the welfare of young adults.

Zeta-Flux · 2012-08-31, 00:43

Brian-E,

In the actual abstract of the paper it reads:

Quote:

The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types. The results reveal numerous, consistent differences, especially between the children of women who have had a lesbian relationship and those with still-married (heterosexual) biological parents. The results are typically robust in multivariate contexts as well, suggesting far greater diversity in lesbian-parent household experiences than convenience-sample studies of lesbian families have revealed. The NFSS proves to be an illuminating, versatile dataset that can assist family scholars in understanding the long reach of family structure and transitions.

The summary you gave appears to be (although I might be mistaken) the statement of the design of the study. And it was designed to do exactly what your summary said. However, after the data was collected, it became clear that they didn't have enough information to make broad claims about same-sex parents. So, in the actual study, the language reflects that fact.

In other words, the paragraph you gave does not appear to be a summary of the study. Rather, it is a statement made before the study was made, about what the study wanted to do.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Patient Rights	R.D. Silverman	Soap Box	25	2013-04-02 08:41
Marriage and Civil Partnerships: what is the ideal situation?	Brian-E	Soap Box	53	2013-02-19 16:31
Gay Marriage: weekly alternating viewpoints	Brian-E	Soap Box	46	2008-11-09 22:21

2012-06-15, 03:28	#640
Zeta-Flux May 2003 7·13·17 Posts	cheesehead, Definitely don't spend money trying to get a copy of the paper to satisfy my request. If the local library doesn't have access, you might try emailing one of the authors, but I wouldn't take it farther than that. Good hunting, Zeta-Flux

2012-06-15, 19:43	#641
cheesehead "Richard B. Woods" Aug 2002 Wisconsin USA 7692₁₀ Posts	First, you challenge me to "Please demonstrate that ~~claim~~[sic] guess." Then when I outline a plan for doing so, you want to discourage me? ? ? :-D I could benefit from the mental and physical exercise, so I intend to proceed.

2012-08-30, 14:41	#647
Zeta-Flux May 2003 1547₁₀ Posts	Brian-E, An article in the New Yorker (of all places) is not the right venue to show that the article has been "widely debunked." And it hasn't. A more accurate statement is the following: The claim (not made by Regnerus in his study, but mostly by newspapers and conservative commentators) that the Regnerus paper says something concrete on the politics of gay parenting, is false. The only thing it does establish on that front is that previous studies contained major faults due to self-selected samples and small sample sizes. More specifically, Regnerus himself numerous times (in interviews, in his own paper, and on his blog) has pointed out the necessary limitations in a study which is based on a random sample of the population. The main complaint I've seen is that he groups all people (regardless of other issues, like divorce, etc...) into a single group based on whether their parents ever experienced same-sex relations. The reason for this choice was not political, but an expedient since the number of people interviewed would have had to increase 10 fold to get a sample size large enough to distinguish between groups further. As Regnerus himself says, the data came from children who are only now becoming adults, and so the data might be explained as a lack of gay adoption in the past. Or the fact that most children of gay children had their parents divorced (for obvious reasons, since surrogacy was not common), and that divorce is the factor that is the negative. And so forth, and so on. But when people try to make this data political, and find fault with Regnerus not for what he has said or what the study says, but rather how others have interpreted the paper, that is wrong. [At the very least, if you claim the paper has been debunked you should show it not from biased news articles, but from professional refereed articles. And you should include Regnerus' response if he has one.] ---- Moreno, You say: "I guess people can do anything unless it badly affects me and from the other hand, what if it affects my kids?" It seems a common theme nowadays that laws should only be based on provable harm. If it doesn't hurt me, then it isn't wrong. And that seems a reasonable enough rule (maybe not for morality as a whole, but for the laws by which we are governed it seems okay). The problem is, sometimes harms are hard to measure. At the time, a majority of Americans thought that no-fault divorce would not be harmful to anyone. It was a decision between two grown adults after all. It was a private decision. But, as many studies have shown, the effects have been very negative. Now, we are told that gay marriage will similarly have only a positive effect on the population. I'm skeptical. In countries where gay marriage is allowed, I haven't heard of the family structure becoming stronger. What I have seen, here in America, is a push to make surrogacy more prevalent. And that is not a private decision, but affects the child created in significant ways. I'm not ready to abandon the idea that a child fares much better (in nearly all cases) if raised by the father and mother in a stable marriage. I don't want to legitimize a process whereby children are created outside the bonds of marriage.