The Gay - Totally gloating

... and I don't care.

--------------------------------------------------

HIM:

A group of professors has debunked the research of a sociologist, finding that children with heterosexual parents do better in school than those raised by homosexuals.

Dr. Douglas Allen, Burnaby Mountain professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, tells OneNewsNow that he, Dr. Catherine Pakaluk of Ave Marie University, and Dr. Joseph Price of Brigham Young University took a look at a large study conducted by Stanford sociologist Dr. Michael Rosenfeld that found no difference between children who are reared by heterosexual parents and those raised by homosexual couples. The three found a mistake in the research that completely alters the outcome.

"It turns out the children from these homes don't do as well. They're about 35 percent more likely to fail a grade," Allen reports about youngsters raised by homosexuals.

But homosexual households, adds Allen, are not the only ones that prove problematic for children's educational success.

"If you grow up with your parents cohabitating, but they're heterosexual, you're about 15 percent more likely than [those with] same-sex parents to make normal progress through schools," the professor explains. "If you have a never-marriedsingle mom, you're about 23 percent more likely to make normal progress through school compared to growing up in a same-sex household."

According to Allen, every time a study that claims no harm to children raised by same-gender couples is released, it has been successfully disputed when put under a microscope.

"The gold standard is to have married, heterosexual parents," Allen concludes. "I mean, every study pretty well finds that. It doesn't matter what dimension you're looking at; there's no question -- the gold standard is having two parents, married, opposite sex."

The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Demography. Since it is available by subscription only, Allen suggests finding a library that subscribes.

Allen is an award-winning teacher and a member of the Ruth Institute Circle of Experts.

--------------------------------------------------

ME:

The three found a mistake in the research that completely alters the outcome. <-- Citation needed. What mistake?

I'm all for scientific inquiry on the homosexuality of parents and the outcomes on children, but this is as vague as it gets.

--------------------------------------------------

HIM:

The person said there was no difference if a child was raised by hetero or homosexual. Says that in paragraph 1

that found no difference between children who are reared by heterosexual parents and those raised by homosexual couples. The three found a mistake in the research that completely alters the outcome.

--------------------------------------------------

ME:

Yes, but what was the mistake? What was the error they found in the study? It's so vague.

--------------------------------------------------

HIM:

the original author "played with" the results to make them work. They found it was an intentional error to cover up the lies being told about raising children. You can read more online if you look up the authors.

--------------------------------------------------

ME:

“The previous study claiming no differences between the children of same sex parents and other children had serious problems,” said study co-author Douglas Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. That study, he said, “excluded children who were not biologically related to the household head, and children who did not live in the same place for five years. That threw out over half of the observations. When we put those children back into our analysis, but controlled for these factors, we found that the children of same sex parents are less likely to make normal progress through school.”

Okay, now we have something to work with. This is the flaw they stated existed.

So, in the case of heterosexual parents, the Stanford study removed observations from children who were not related to the head of the family and children who did not live in the same place for at minimum five years in the same household. Those seem like reasonable restrictions to me. After all, you want to be controlling for children's progress through school. If a child moves multiple times throughout the childhood, there is a higher risk of the child not making it through school and that will tamper with the results.

The second limitation is making sure the head of the family is the biological parent of the child. This makes some sense at least. This would remove children that are in foster care and children who have dealt with divorce which strongly affects school progress. There are also other obvious limitations in place like making sure both parents are present.

So this counterstudy added those factors back in. I will allow you to defend why these statistics should be allowed in the study and that Stanford's eliminations were biased.

--------------------------------------------------

HIM:

You should see some of the other studies, Paul. This isn't the first. Scholars are paid to play with the facts to make them come out like the sponsors or educational institution wants them. You should see the study on homosexual dual parenting and kids who have been abused. The numbers were shockingly high compared to heterosexuals. I mean "deadly high". Google it yourself. I'm showing you that what you read is biased as can be, most often from the left of center politically, and sometimes so far left of center as to be hideous. Can you imagine if I said heterosexual parents are 33% more likely to have a kid who is abused than a homosexual parent? How long til that made front page? But conversely, the other was buried. Except on FOX.

--------------------------------------------------

ME:

"Scholars are paid to play with the facts to make them come out like the sponsors or educational institution wants them."

Are you sure you aren't victim to the same thing here? Douglas Allen, the researcher speaking to the press, is part of the Ruth Institute. Why don't you go to the Ruth Institute's website? http://www.ruthinstitute.org/

Here's Douglas Allen's biography on the Ruth Institute's website. http://www.ruthinstitute.org/ITAF12/...ios/allen.html

So now I can say that Douglas Allen is part of the Ruth Institute, an institution obviously desiring marriage between one man and one woman. The Ruth Institute is funded by the National Organization for Marriage Education Fund.

So you have been conned, Dad, to believe what a special interest group would have you believe. Douglas Allen is being paid to twist the facts of a study to illogical proportions in order to make his institute appear correct.

So why is it when Douglas Allen does it that it's OK but when Stanford does it they're evil?

"Science"... or maybe "Statistics".... If you're human there is bias.

Thanks for linking the Ruth Institute at the end, because I was wondering what the pineapple these places were the whole time.

What a joke. And almost all of these studies are bound to have their limitations anyways. I read an incredible one last year for class that showed children of homosexual couples were actually more well-adjusted than those raised in heterosexual households, and I wish I could find for the life of me now, but even though it was extensive, followed families for decades, and from a highly reputable institution, it still rested on, for example, self-reporting from families, which suffers from social desirability bias.

So no study is perfect, but within the scope of effective statistical measurement there are more studies finding no issue with homosexual parents than not, with enough bullpomegranate attacks like these from jokes of organizations.

well, adopted kids do better at school that kids that don't go to school because of no funds, if i had to guess no?

edit: nvm I didn't realize it had an ass as the youtube pic. LOL

Wow. Your Dad completely fell for that one. I do not understand why interest groups need to go out of their way to pull pomegranate like this. There is no reason why those two factors should have been added back into the study.

HIM:

I have not been conned. I know his backing. So, you will not accept his interpretation of the facts, but accept the other? Why? WHo would be conned, really? I also am aware of his biases, but find him more convincing based on the criteria he chose. Which would you choose? Mine (Allen's?) or the other?

I can't wrap my head around how anyone could figure that emitting those criteria is skewing the study's results. Including both of those factors can entail a lot of other issues that can affect the results of the study and purposely omitting them definitely is creating a fairer environment for observation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrazyForDex

I can't wrap my head around how anyone could figure that emitting those criteria is skewing the study's results. Including both of those factors can entail a lot of other issues that can affect the results of the study and purposely omitting them definitely is creating a fairer environment for observation.

---

I think the authors of the original study should have kept those data, and used them to show that the key element (as in, highest statistical correlation) is stability. That children who live with the same family all their lives, do better than children who get shaken around, regardless of the number or genders of the adults in the family. Or something similar.

I believe something like that would have been less susceptible to attacks. Discarding data really does look bad.


Also, I have to ask, what is this "household head"? Like, for tax purposes? It really matters whether the child is biologically related to the higher income earner or the other adult?

Statistics are fun.

The average count of legs per human is less than 2.
Heck, the average count of testicles on humans is something a bit lower than 1.

Also, there's 2.3 Popes per square km in the vatican. But 5.9 per square mile.

And yeah, most of the kids in gay couples are adopted, aren't they? That's a factor to consider too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloy

Statistics are fun.

The average count of legs per human is less than 2.
Heck, the average count of testicles on humans is something a bit lower than 1.

Also, there's 2.3 Popes per square km in the vatican. But 5.9 per square mile.

And yeah, most of the kids in gay couples are adopted, aren't they? That's a factor to consider too.

---

Not really. Most of the kids in gay couples are in lesbian couples.

I don't know the statistics for male-male couples in the USA, comparing adoption to surrogacy or some other arrangement with a woman. I do know that most countries in the world make it very hard to impossible for a "single" man to adopt a healthy baby or at all. Even harder for a male couple.

Did anyone peer review this so called "debunk"? Also, what was their hypothesis on why they thought straight kids did better?