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?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by CrazyForDex
about this post
Bookmarks