<!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Jan 28 2005, 03:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Jan 28 2005, 03:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I agree with you in a sense, but I don't think that a homosexual couple should be automatically labeled a risk for adoption. I know several homosexual couples who are raising kids right now.. Sure, some of those children are odd, but then some of them are model students.
I would like to see this study, I'm intrigued. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't hold your breath. He's full of it. Even if he really has seen such a study, it's probably just some Family Research Council glurge. The fact is, no random sample can be drawn because it's near impossible to figure out what households are **** and have kids, who's biological and who's foster, and so on. Real legitimate statisticians have talked about this problem. And yet here's legionarrie claiming to have his airtight study.
Ah, found it. It was further down on that page that I linked before.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Growing up in a homosexual home
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behaviour of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A more complete summary of the study may be found <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>here.</a> I'd also like to take this opportunity to wave <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Rule 5</a> in front of both those links like a holy cross. Specifically, <i>"Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles."</i>
And Apos, come now. You can't honestly expect a pro-homosexual site to host stats on why same-sex couples raise underperforming kids, nor a site dedicated to preserving the family to post stats on why same-sex couple make perfectly fine parents. But, if the evidence is to fall against me, or even proove inconclusive, you should be able to find at least SOMETHING about homosexual parenting and it's equivalence to a nuclear family.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jan 28 2005, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jan 28 2005, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, found it. It was further down on that page that I linked before.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Growing up in a homosexual home
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behaviour of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A more complete summary of the study may be found <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>here.</a> I'd also like to take this opportunity to wave <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Rule 5</a> in front of both those links like a holy cross. Specifically, <i>"Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles."</i>
And Apos, come now. You can't honestly expect a pro-homosexual site to host stats on why same-sex couples raise underperforming kids, nor a site dedicated to preserving the family to post stats on why same-sex couple make perfectly fine parents. But, if the evidence is to fall against me, or even proove inconclusive, you should be able to find at least SOMETHING about homosexual parenting and it's equivalence to a nuclear family.
I've yet to see a shred of it here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In this csae, I don't see Rule 5 as in play. These aren't statistically meaningful studies. And instead of post-facto, I just predicted that you would cite some propaganda glurge that obviously isn't going to give the full story, instead of some legitmate peer-reviewed work from an actual journal. And that's exactly what happened.
Search for the word "random" in your latest cite. Can't find it? Then it's crap. It's as anecdotal as all the other work out there.
And you still haven't legitimately responded to my query about other groups which might have underperforming children. For instance, African Americans. Should we take their children away or deny them the ability to adopt based on the color of their skin? And don't try to argue "race isn't a choice." It doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't: it just isn't, in your own words, in the best interests of the children, no matter who's fault that is.
<a href='http://www.amsa.org/advocacy/lgbtpm/postings2.cfm?id=63' target='_blank'>This one</a> begins and ends with anecdotal evidence, something hardly worth building a theory or model on. It's akin to the whole "My _blank_ works fine, so I don't believe that yours and all those other people's is broken."
That aside, the only real piece of actual study in there is, as far as I can tell;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In a recently completed study comparing 16 boys, ages 5 through 9, raised from birth by lesbian parents with 16 boys raised by heterosexual parents, for example, Dr. Peggy F. Drexler, a psychologist in San Francisco, found that the sons of the lesbian couples were more willing "to entertain discussion about a broader range of sexual orientation," and more "fluid" in their definitions of masculine behavior.
"They went outside and threw the ball around," Dr. Drexler said, "but they also did cooking with their mother. They were kind of redefining gender roles because they have to deal with the complexities of their own families."
Still, she added: "These were very boyish boys. They were very confident about their boyishness. And the parents valued their maleness and encouraged it and admired it, which goes against the sort of myth that lesbians hate men and might undermine their sons' masculinity." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And though this study might dispell some myths lesbians, it doesn't really offer any quantitative evidence regarding performance or psycological strength. It's simply saying that they see normality differently. Duh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While there is no evidence that having **** or lesbian parents harms children, the sociologists say, the notion that it has no impact on a child's life is implausible at best. And, after reviewing two decades of research on the topic, the authors conclude that social scientists in fact have found provocative differences, but have played them down for fear that their findings will be misused.
"It doesn't make sense to claim that there are no differences based on the research that's been done so far," said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology and gender studies at the University of Southern California and the lead author of the paper, which appeared in The American Sociological Review.
Dr. Stacey and a colleague, Dr. Timothy J. Biblarz, also of U.S.C., reviewed 21 studies of the children of **** or lesbian parents published from 1981 through 1998. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's just not true. The study I <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>linked to</a> earlyer was published in 1996, so it should have been adressed. Claiming there's no evidence of any negative effects is a false claim.
The second link is a bit more on target, and focuses on the psycological effects again. It's a flat contradiction of the aforementioned study,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assessment: This material from the Sarantakos study offers evidence that homosexuals’ children are well behaved in school — in this respect they did not differ from other children. However, they were less popular with their peers and more prone to isolation (as, for instance, in their approach to sport).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we'll call that point moot. However, my charge still stands with regards to academia.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jan 28 2005, 04:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jan 28 2005, 04:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's just not true. The study I <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>linked to</a> earlyer was published in 1996, so it should have been adressed. Claiming there's no evidence of any negative effects is a false claim.
The second link is a bit more on target, and focuses on the psycological effects again. It's a flat contradiction of the aforementioned study,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assessment: This material from the Sarantakos study offers evidence that homosexuals’ children are well behaved in school — in this respect they did not differ from other children. However, they were less popular with their peers and more prone to isolation (as, for instance, in their approach to sport).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we'll call that point moot. However, my charge still stands with regards to academia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This whole topic of who can adopt is very nice, but it kind of diverges from what I really wanted to adress: whats the underlying problem? Why is it bad for people to be homosexuals?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited January 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jan 28 2005, 06:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jan 28 2005, 06:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ah, found it. It was further down on that page that I linked before.
A more complete summary of the study may be found <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>here.</a> I'd also like to take this opportunity to wave <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Rule 5</a> in front of both those links like a holy cross. Specifically, <i>"Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles."</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1)The article you are citing is Australian, which causes it to automatically lose some cred. Joke people, joke. 2)The link you have provided makes me literally want to vomit in disgust. I don't like hate. I couldn't read it past the first few paragraphs. 3)This study, although interesting, leaves many MANY questions in my mind. Why can't I locate the actual text of this study anywhere? What are the methods of testing? What "other study" were they in? Why is the ratio of males to females so off? What is the purpose of this pairing, and if three types of families were scored, why were the children not arranged in groups of 3? Were the children in the homosexual group in an orphanage for an extended period of time? Why were children of single parents (different groups for each gender of course) not included in this study, if but for completenes' sake? Why were adopted children in heterosexual households not included? Why are there so many questions attached to this study?
And also, my biggest problem with this study, it explains nothing. If children raised by homosexuals are so stupid, why? What exactly about being raised by homosexuals causes this stunted developement? Until you can tell me that, this study means nothing. By the evidence presented by this study we can conclude that all adopted children are stupid, does that mean that all adoptions should be stopped?
In my mind, your amazing evidence means nothing until I can look it over more than the 2 or 3 paraphrased paragraphs I can find on it. I dunno, maybe I just suck at the internet and can't find it.
[edit]having read farther in the link you proveded (past the parts that make me want to punch whoever wrote it in the junk) a few of my questions have been answered.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In this csae, I don't see Rule 5 as in play. These aren't statistically meaningful studies. And instead of post-facto, I just predicted that you would cite some propaganda glurge that obviously isn't going to give the full story, instead of some legitmate peer-reviewed work from an actual journal. And that's exactly what happened.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your side is at fault as much as I am. The two links I was given by mandrid are hosted on advocacy sites for **** rights, and one of them even includes information at the bottom about how to best help out with the fight against oppression from the evil tryannical Right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Search for the word "random" in your latest cite. Can't find it? Then it's crap. It's as anecdotal as all the other work out there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sarantakos’ entire set of 58 “primary school age” children of coupled lesbians (n= 47) and *** (n= 11) were matched by age (which ranged from 5 to 12 years), gender, year of study, and various parental characteristics to 58 children of married and 58 children of cohabiting heterosexuals. Since Sarantakos had 330 married and 330 cohabiting couples enrolled in a separate longitudinal study, such a match was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So just because instead of dialing a random number and asking whether or not the person on the other end was a homosexual, had kids, and how those kids were doing in school, it's crap? Sounds an awful lot to me like Sarantakos set up a control group and a test group like you would in a scientific experiment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And you still haven't legitimately responded to my query about other groups which might have underperforming children. For instance, African Americans. Should we take their children away or deny them the ability to adopt based on the color of their skin? And don't try to argue "race isn't a choice." It doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't: it just isn't, in your own words, in the best interests of the children, no matter who's fault that is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's other factors at work than race, you're oversimplifying the issue. For instance, <a href='http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/188.html' target='_blank'>poverty or the inner-city.</a> The control group for the study I posted was paired in socio-economic class to the test group.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So just because instead of dialing a random number and asking whether or not the person on the other end was a homosexual, had kids, and how those kids were doing in school, it's crap? Sounds an awful lot to me like Sarantakos set up a control group and a test group like you would in a scientific experiment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG, do you know anything about science or statistics?
Do you understand the point of EPSEM samples? You can't have a control and experiemental group whose results you want to generalize upon unless your sample is randomly drawn. This study was matched on some basic categories, but matched studies are vastly inferior to randomly drawn ones, since they still admit a huge amount of sample bias. No legitimate social scientist would ever make broad conclusions based on a single round of matched samples like you're trying to do. And if this guy was doing real science, I'll bet he even says so right in his article, which your hate then group completely ignored when it cited the article.
It appears I was treating social science like chemistry. My mistake.
Doing further research, I came across a <a href='http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf' target='_blank'>study</a> on 49 of the studies on same-sex parenting.
Interestingly enough, on p74 it describes Cameron and Cameron as one of the only studies with a random selection.
Further googling found me <a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26549' target='_blank'>this</a> online:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.
The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Institute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.
The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.
It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, the 38 appelate cases dealing with a homosexual parent were compared to 38 randomly selected appeals cases.
Sounds legit to me, but you're the expert on statistical study and sampling, so you tell me.
I may be interpreting this wrong, so forgive me if I make a mistake here.
38 cases with homosexual parents. 76 cases altogether. Assume 2 people (a couple) for each case. If 97% of abuse came from homosexuals, doesn't that mean that all but 2 abused the children? If so, I suspect that something is fundementally flawed with that study.
Does it bother anyone else that all the subjects for the study had gone through custody battles? If thats true then you haven't isolated the "homosexual parenting" factor sufficiently. Besides which, I still contend that homosexual adoption has nothing to do with homosexual marriage in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Jan 29 2005, 04:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Jan 29 2005, 04:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It appears I was treating social science like chemistry. My mistake.
Doing further research, I came across a <a href='http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf' target='_blank'>study</a> on 49 of the studies on same-sex parenting.
Interestingly enough, on p74 it describes Cameron and Cameron as one of the only studies with a random selection.
Further googling found me <a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26549' target='_blank'>this</a> online:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.
The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Institute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.
The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.
It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, the 38 appelate cases dealing with a homosexual parent were compared to 38 randomly selected appeals cases.
Sounds legit to me, but you're the expert on statistical study and sampling, so you tell me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> "It appears I was treating social science like chemistry. My mistake."
In chemistry, it is possible to randomly assign various identical chemicals into two groups and then subject only one group to some other reagent. That's science. In social science, you can't do things like that because in this case it would mean randomly stealing babies from hospitals and assigning them to different randomly chosen **** or straight families: completely unworkable. This is precisely why there isn't very good research supporting either side of this issue: it's extremely hard to control for what you need to control. However, I should note that the actual social scientists that find generaly no scary differences at all are always careful to couch their findings with the disclaimer that their findings are barely more than anecdotal and contribute to a growing literature, but not definative demonstration. Organizations like the FRC, ont he other hand, trumpet the results of any cockimamie study thrown together by a nutjob in his basement making crank survey calls. And instead of discussing the limitations of these lousy studies, they run around claiming that they are the ONLY valid ones: see, because all the others the scientists admit are not generalizable! Ha! See?!!!
Well, we do see. It tells us a lot about who is honest and scientific, who has agendas, and who we can be more likely to trust.
Now if you read your cite (worldnetdaily!) you'll notice that they are fairly shy about which journal "Cameron and Cameron" was published in. That's because it wasn't. It was glurge published by an anti-**** group, not a peer-reviewed study at all. In fact, Cameron had, before this study even came out, already been thrown out of the American Psychological Association because of "unethical scholarly practices, such as selective, misleading representations of research and making claims that could not be substantiated."
And no wonder: the methodology of this sort of study is bizarre. There may be any number of reasons why the sorts of cases that make it to the appellate level are very different depending on whether the parents are homosexual or not. But worst of all, I don't see any indication that the "homosexual parent" cases actually were what they purport to be: i.e. two homosexual parents in a partnership with a child. Given that there are no legal grounds for custody battles among unmarriable **** parents, it's hard to see how any such families could be represented in this "study." Instead, note the very careful wording and what it implies: who are these cases very likely to overrepresent represent?
Pedophiles! No wonder the abuse rates are so high: Cameron has basically set up the odds so that ANY case involving sexual molestation automagically gets ruled out from consideration for the supposedly "random" selection of other cases and put in the "involving one homosexual parent" area.
In other words, this entire study is almost certainly a gross slander aimed at **** parents when in fact the bulk of its cases almost certainly involve wives accusing their husbands of abusing the kids (whether justified or not), after which Cameron then automatically classes them as yet another example of an awful homosexual home.
It's no real wonder the guy got tossed out of the APA.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 30 2005, 01:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 30 2005, 01:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> source please. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not sure what exactly is the truth here, but anyway:
<a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html' target='_blank'>This site defends him, noting of course that it is the same one that uses that study.</a>
<a href='http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html' target='_blank'>This site claims the opposite.</a>
As they are both websites, they are probably equally as full of rubbish because they can change their information on a whim. None the less, these should do for a starting point anyway.
Let's see: one is an anti-homosexual lobby group. The other are scientists and researchers and psychologists from all around the country. The former tout studies with such obvious and ridiculous flaws that even laymen could see them if they'd only look. The latter represent the view of the actual scientific community of experts.
Yeah, definately: who to trust on this one? <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
I would like to see this study, I'm intrigued. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't hold your breath. He's full of it. Even if he really has seen such a study, it's probably just some Family Research Council glurge. The fact is, no random sample can be drawn because it's near impossible to figure out what households are **** and have kids, who's biological and who's foster, and so on. Real legitimate statisticians have talked about this problem. And yet here's legionarrie claiming to have his airtight study.
Bull.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Growing up in a homosexual home
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behaviour of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A more complete summary of the study may be found <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>here.</a> I'd also like to take this opportunity to wave <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Rule 5</a> in front of both those links like a holy cross. Specifically, <i>"Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles."</i>
And Apos, come now. You can't honestly expect a pro-homosexual site to host stats on why same-sex couples raise underperforming kids, nor a site dedicated to preserving the family to post stats on why same-sex couple make perfectly fine parents. But, if the evidence is to fall against me, or even proove inconclusive, you should be able to find at least SOMETHING about homosexual parenting and it's equivalence to a nuclear family.
I've yet to see a shred of it here.
<a href='http://www.amsa.org/advocacy/lgbtpm/postings2.cfm?id=63' target='_blank'>http://www.amsa.org/advocacy/lgbtpm/postings2.cfm?id=63</a>
<a href='http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~britner/borisjuk.html' target='_blank'>http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~britner/borisjuk.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Growing up in a homosexual home
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor of Sociology at Charles Sturt University, Wagga, NSW, has conducted a number of studies on heterosexual and homosexual couples. His 1996 paper, Children in three contexts, explored the relationship between family environment and behaviour of primary school children living in three family contexts: married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual.
Sarantakos first selected the children of homosexuals who had been involved in another project on homosexual cohabitation. The children had been born in a previous heterosexual relationship. They were matched with children living in families with married and cohabiting heterosexual parents with similar attributes in terms of education, occupation and socio-economic status. This process resulted in 174 children - 58 in each family type. The homosexual contexts comprised 11 male and 47 female pairs.
Sarantakos asked teachers to rate the language, mathematical, social studies and sports performance of the children, as well as to assess the social issues of sociability, learning attitude and parental support. The children were interviewed about parental methods of discipline and the degree of freedom the children were allowed in the home.
School achievements
The major finding of the study was that family type made a significant difference to the children's school achievements. Children in families with their married biological parents scored best of the three groups (on a scale from 1 to 9) in language ability (7.7), mathematics (7.9) and sport (8.9). Children of cohabiting couples generally did next best in these areas (6.8, 7.0 and 8.3), while children of homosexuals scored lowest (5.5, 5.5, 5.9). Social studies was the only exception to this trend - all scores were similar, with children of homosexuals doing slightly better (7.6) than those of married couples (7.3), who were slightly ahead of children of cohabiting couples (7.0).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A more complete summary of the study may be found <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>here.</a> I'd also like to take this opportunity to wave <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Rule 5</a> in front of both those links like a holy cross. Specifically, <i>"Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles."</i>
And Apos, come now. You can't honestly expect a pro-homosexual site to host stats on why same-sex couples raise underperforming kids, nor a site dedicated to preserving the family to post stats on why same-sex couple make perfectly fine parents. But, if the evidence is to fall against me, or even proove inconclusive, you should be able to find at least SOMETHING about homosexual parenting and it's equivalence to a nuclear family.
I've yet to see a shred of it here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In this csae, I don't see Rule 5 as in play. These aren't statistically meaningful studies. And instead of post-facto, I just predicted that you would cite some propaganda glurge that obviously isn't going to give the full story, instead of some legitmate peer-reviewed work from an actual journal. And that's exactly what happened.
Search for the word "random" in your latest cite. Can't find it? Then it's crap. It's as anecdotal as all the other work out there.
And you still haven't legitimately responded to my query about other groups which might have underperforming children. For instance, African Americans. Should we take their children away or deny them the ability to adopt based on the color of their skin? And don't try to argue "race isn't a choice." It doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't: it just isn't, in your own words, in the best interests of the children, no matter who's fault that is.
<a href='http://www.amsa.org/advocacy/lgbtpm/postings2.cfm?id=63' target='_blank'>This one</a> begins and ends with anecdotal evidence, something hardly worth building a theory or model on. It's akin to the whole "My _blank_ works fine, so I don't believe that yours and all those other people's is broken."
That aside, the only real piece of actual study in there is, as far as I can tell;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In a recently completed study comparing 16 boys, ages 5 through 9, raised from birth by lesbian parents with 16 boys raised by heterosexual parents, for example, Dr. Peggy F. Drexler, a psychologist in San Francisco, found that the sons of the lesbian couples were more willing "to entertain discussion about a broader range of sexual orientation," and more "fluid" in their definitions of masculine behavior.
"They went outside and threw the ball around," Dr. Drexler said, "but they also did cooking with their mother. They were kind of redefining gender roles because they have to deal with the complexities of their own families."
Still, she added: "These were very boyish boys. They were very confident about their boyishness. And the parents valued their maleness and encouraged it and admired it, which goes against the sort of myth that lesbians hate men and might undermine their sons' masculinity." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And though this study might dispell some myths lesbians, it doesn't really offer any quantitative evidence regarding performance or psycological strength. It's simply saying that they see normality differently. Duh.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While there is no evidence that having **** or lesbian parents harms children, the sociologists say, the notion that it has no impact on a child's life is implausible at best. And, after reviewing two decades of research on the topic, the authors conclude that social scientists in fact have found provocative differences, but have played them down for fear that their findings will be misused.
"It doesn't make sense to claim that there are no differences based on the research that's been done so far," said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology and gender studies at the University of Southern California and the lead author of the paper, which appeared in The American Sociological Review.
Dr. Stacey and a colleague, Dr. Timothy J. Biblarz, also of U.S.C., reviewed 21 studies of the children of **** or lesbian parents published from 1981 through 1998. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just not true. The study I <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>linked to</a> earlyer was published in 1996, so it should have been adressed. Claiming there's no evidence of any negative effects is a false claim.
The second link is a bit more on target, and focuses on the psycological effects again. It's a flat contradiction of the aforementioned study,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assessment: This material from the Sarantakos study offers evidence that homosexuals’ children are well behaved in school — in this respect they did not differ from other children. However, they were less popular with their peers and more prone to isolation (as, for instance, in their approach to sport).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we'll call that point moot. However, my charge still stands with regards to academia.
That's just not true. The study I <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>linked to</a> earlyer was published in 1996, so it should have been adressed. Claiming there's no evidence of any negative effects is a false claim.
The second link is a bit more on target, and focuses on the psycological effects again. It's a flat contradiction of the aforementioned study,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assessment: This material from the Sarantakos study offers evidence that homosexuals’ children are well behaved in school — in this respect they did not differ from other children. However, they were less popular with their peers and more prone to isolation (as, for instance, in their approach to sport).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we'll call that point moot. However, my charge still stands with regards to academia. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This whole topic of who can adopt is very nice, but it kind of diverges from what I really wanted to adress: whats the underlying problem? Why is it bad for people to be homosexuals?
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
insert extremely sketchy article here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A more complete summary of the study may be found <a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_01_06.html' target='_blank'>here.</a> I'd also like to take this opportunity to wave <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Rule 5</a> in front of both those links like a holy cross. Specifically, <i>"Unless you can find contradicting factual data, you will have to accept the newssources validity and instead go the hard way, argumentatively tackling the points based upon those articles."</i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1)The article you are citing is Australian, which causes it to automatically lose some cred. Joke people, joke.
2)The link you have provided makes me literally want to vomit in disgust. I don't like hate. I couldn't read it past the first few paragraphs.
3)This study, although interesting, leaves many MANY questions in my mind. Why can't I locate the actual text of this study anywhere? What are the methods of testing? What "other study" were they in? Why is the ratio of males to females so off? What is the purpose of this pairing, and if three types of families were scored, why were the children not arranged in groups of 3? Were the children in the homosexual group in an orphanage for an extended period of time? Why were children of single parents (different groups for each gender of course) not included in this study, if but for completenes' sake? Why were adopted children in heterosexual households not included? Why are there so many questions attached to this study?
And also, my biggest problem with this study, it explains nothing. If children raised by homosexuals are so stupid, why? What exactly about being raised by homosexuals causes this stunted developement? Until you can tell me that, this study means nothing. By the evidence presented by this study we can conclude that all adopted children are stupid, does that mean that all adoptions should be stopped?
In my mind, your amazing evidence means nothing until I can look it over more than the 2 or 3 paraphrased paragraphs I can find on it. I dunno, maybe I just suck at the internet and can't find it.
[edit]having read farther in the link you proveded (past the parts that make me want to punch whoever wrote it in the junk) a few of my questions have been answered.
Your side is at fault as much as I am. The two links I was given by mandrid are hosted on advocacy sites for **** rights, and one of them even includes information at the bottom about how to best help out with the fight against oppression from the evil tryannical Right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Search for the word "random" in your latest cite. Can't find it? Then it's crap. It's as anecdotal as all the other work out there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sarantakos’ entire set of 58 “primary school age” children of coupled lesbians (n= 47) and *** (n= 11) were matched by age (which ranged from 5 to 12 years), gender, year of study, and various parental characteristics to 58 children of married and 58 children of cohabiting heterosexuals. Since Sarantakos had 330 married and 330 cohabiting couples enrolled in a separate longitudinal study, such a match was possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So just because instead of dialing a random number and asking whether or not the person on the other end was a homosexual, had kids, and how those kids were doing in school, it's crap? Sounds an awful lot to me like Sarantakos set up a control group and a test group like you would in a scientific experiment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And you still haven't legitimately responded to my query about other groups which might have underperforming children. For instance, African Americans. Should we take their children away or deny them the ability to adopt based on the color of their skin? And don't try to argue "race isn't a choice." It doesn't matter whether it is or it isn't: it just isn't, in your own words, in the best interests of the children, no matter who's fault that is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's other factors at work than race, you're oversimplifying the issue. For instance, <a href='http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/188.html' target='_blank'>poverty or the inner-city.</a> The control group for the study I posted was paired in socio-economic class to the test group.
OMG, do you know anything about science or statistics?
Do you understand the point of EPSEM samples? You can't have a control and experiemental group whose results you want to generalize upon unless your sample is randomly drawn. This study was matched on some basic categories, but matched studies are vastly inferior to randomly drawn ones, since they still admit a huge amount of sample bias. No legitimate social scientist would ever make broad conclusions based on a single round of matched samples like you're trying to do. And if this guy was doing real science, I'll bet he even says so right in his article, which your hate then group completely ignored when it cited the article.
Doing further research, I came across a <a href='http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf' target='_blank'>study</a> on 49 of the studies on same-sex parenting.
Interestingly enough, on p74 it describes Cameron and Cameron as one of the only studies with a random selection.
Further googling found me <a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26549' target='_blank'>this</a> online:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.
The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Institute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.
The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.
It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, the 38 appelate cases dealing with a homosexual parent were compared to 38 randomly selected appeals cases.
Sounds legit to me, but you're the expert on statistical study and sampling, so you tell me.
38 cases with homosexual parents. 76 cases altogether. Assume 2 people (a couple) for each case. If 97% of abuse came from homosexuals, doesn't that mean that all but 2 abused the children? If so, I suspect that something is fundementally flawed with that study.
Doing further research, I came across a <a href='http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf' target='_blank'>study</a> on 49 of the studies on same-sex parenting.
Interestingly enough, on p74 it describes Cameron and Cameron as one of the only studies with a random selection.
Further googling found me <a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26549' target='_blank'>this</a> online:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->While there is ample evidence to show that children of married couples in intact families fare better than children of single parents or divorced couples, reliable studies comparing children raised in traditional families to those raised by cohabitating adults who engage in homosexual practices are few and far between but they do exist and should have been cited to refute the AAP's claims.
The study with the largest number of children was completed by Cameron and Cameron of the Family Research Institute and published in 1998. It examined all appellate cases of custody disputes involving a homosexual parent in 29 states to 38 appeals cases involving custody disputes drawn randomly from 1956 to 1991.
The advantages of selecting cases that reach the appeals court level are many: They offer official distillations of large bodies of information that have passed through two or more layers of the legal system. Also, the children in these studies tend to be older, thereby providing evidence of long-term effects. Furthermore, unlike studies done with volunteers, in which all relevant data is available only to the investigator, the relevant data in Cameron and Cameron is available for public inspection in essentially every law library in the United States.
It was the first study to examine the character of homosexual and heterosexual parents in an adversarial setting. The results were startling. Eighty-two percent of the homosexual parents versus 18 percent of the heterosexual parents were recorded as having poor character. More importantly, of the recorded harms to children, which included molestation and physical abuse, 97 percent were attributed to the homosexual parent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, the 38 appelate cases dealing with a homosexual parent were compared to 38 randomly selected appeals cases.
Sounds legit to me, but you're the expert on statistical study and sampling, so you tell me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
"It appears I was treating social science like chemistry. My mistake."
In chemistry, it is possible to randomly assign various identical chemicals into two groups and then subject only one group to some other reagent. That's science. In social science, you can't do things like that because in this case it would mean randomly stealing babies from hospitals and assigning them to different randomly chosen **** or straight families: completely unworkable. This is precisely why there isn't very good research supporting either side of this issue: it's extremely hard to control for what you need to control. However, I should note that the actual social scientists that find generaly no scary differences at all are always careful to couch their findings with the disclaimer that their findings are barely more than anecdotal and contribute to a growing literature, but not definative demonstration. Organizations like the FRC, ont he other hand, trumpet the results of any cockimamie study thrown together by a nutjob in his basement making crank survey calls. And instead of discussing the limitations of these lousy studies, they run around claiming that they are the ONLY valid ones: see, because all the others the scientists admit are not generalizable! Ha! See?!!!
Well, we do see. It tells us a lot about who is honest and scientific, who has agendas, and who we can be more likely to trust.
Now if you read your cite (worldnetdaily!) you'll notice that they are fairly shy about which journal "Cameron and Cameron" was published in. That's because it wasn't. It was glurge published by an anti-**** group, not a peer-reviewed study at all. In fact, Cameron had, before this study even came out, already been thrown out of the American Psychological Association because of "unethical scholarly practices, such as selective, misleading representations of research and making claims that could not be substantiated."
And no wonder: the methodology of this sort of study is bizarre. There may be any number of reasons why the sorts of cases that make it to the appellate level are very different depending on whether the parents are homosexual or not. But worst of all, I don't see any indication that the "homosexual parent" cases actually were what they purport to be: i.e. two homosexual parents in a partnership with a child. Given that there are no legal grounds for custody battles among unmarriable **** parents, it's hard to see how any such families could be represented in this "study." Instead, note the very careful wording and what it implies: who are these cases very likely to overrepresent represent?
Pedophiles! No wonder the abuse rates are so high: Cameron has basically set up the odds so that ANY case involving sexual molestation automagically gets ruled out from consideration for the supposedly "random" selection of other cases and put in the "involving one homosexual parent" area.
In other words, this entire study is almost certainly a gross slander aimed at **** parents when in fact the bulk of its cases almost certainly involve wives accusing their husbands of abusing the kids (whether justified or not), after which Cameron then automatically classes them as yet another example of an awful homosexual home.
It's no real wonder the guy got tossed out of the APA.
Not sure what exactly is the truth here, but anyway:
<a href='http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_APA-rebuttal.html' target='_blank'>This site defends him, noting of course that it is the same one that uses that study.</a>
<a href='http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html' target='_blank'>This site claims the opposite.</a>
As they are both websites, they are probably equally as full of rubbish because they can change their information on a whim. None the less, these should do for a starting point anyway.
Yeah, definately: who to trust on this one? <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->