This makes me so happy. There’s nothing like having your life ruined by a bunch of overzealous twits.

WINTERY KNIGHT

From Focus on the Family.

Excerpt:

The University of Texas at Austin announced Wednesday that a sociologist who has been excoriated by some in the media over a study showing that parents’ homosexual relationships can have negative effects on children is innocent of academic misconduct

Dr. Mark Regnerus made headlines in June, when his study was published in the widely respected journal Social Science Research. According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana.

As a result, a gay-activist blogger accused Regnerus of academic fraud, demanding in July that the university release all his research…

View original post 286 more words

Advertisements

Published by

Tracy

I’m Tracy

19 thoughts on “”

  1. The blog post you’ve linked does not align with its title. What is contained in the body is this conclusion:

    As a result, a gay-activist blogger accused Regnerus of academic fraud, demanding in July that the university release all his research material and emails with fellow sociologists.

    “None of the allegations of scientific misconduct put forth … were substantiated either by physical data, written materials, or by information provided during the interviews.

    This doesn’t mean that his research was vindicated; it means he didn’t willingly commit fraud. Given that the criticisms I’ve seen of his work suggest that his methods were not rigorous (as opposed to suggesting that he was just lying, an allegation which I had never heard before seeing your post here just now), removing this one criticism does not make his conclusions reliable. One can be wrong without “lying,” after all.

    1. Well, it depends on what you think the charges against his research were in the first place. If you think the charges were that it was wrong them it wasn’t vindicated .The charge being addressed here is that it was fraudulent and according to the university, there is no evidence for that. The article did not say his research was reliable. It said that according to the University of Texas, he did not lie.

      If you take issue with his methods or conclusions, then you have a different problem. I don’t like that he didn’t have more data from stable homosexual families but I hear that those are very hard to come by. As far as I can see, though, his data and methods are significantly better than those in previous studies. They might not meet any ideal, but they are something we can use.

    2. If it interests you, here is the link to Loren Marks’ study about previous studies on Homosexual parenting: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

      Then here is the link to Regnerus’ study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

      And a very good (IMHO) analysis of both studies: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640

      An excerpt:

      As Regnerus explains, the NFSS is unique among gay parenting research in three ways:

      First, it compares the outcomes of children who reported having a mother who had a same-sex relationship with another woman (LM for short) or a father who had a same-sex relationship with another man (GF for short) with the outcomes of children who reported coming from an intact biological family (IBF for short). Most gay parenting research compares gay and lesbian parenting to single, divorced, and step-parent parenting, or conversely compares a select, and often socio-economically privileged, population of gay parents to a broad, representative sample of the general population.

      Second, the NFSS gathered responses from young adult children. Other gay parenting studies focus on the responses of parents for their views about what it is like to be parenting as a gay man or lesbian woman. The NFSS interviewed the sons and daughters of GFs and LMs after they had grown up and matured into young adults (ages 18-39). This allowed the children to speak for themselves about their past experiences and to report on how they are doing at present.

      Finally, the NFSS drew from a large, random sample of the U.S. population. To date, there is only one other gay parenting study that draws from a large, random sample, that of Michael Rosenfeld of Stanford University, who relies upon 2010 U.S. Census data. Every other gay parenting study thus far relies upon small or non-probability samples, which are inadequate for drawing conclusions about the population at large. Additionally, the NFSS gathered more data of interest to gay parenting researchers than did the U.S. Census, soliciting answers on a wide range of outcomes, including social, emotional, and relational well-being.

  2. Being completely horrible at research isn’t fraud. Innocently misinterpreting your data isn’t fraud. Deliberately misrepresenting something is fraud. Being innocent of fraud does not preclude either of those first two possibilities.

    To be honest, I probably won’t waste my time reading any of the articles. I just don’t care whether kids who’ve grown up with gay parents up through now have any higher incidence of anything; that statistic would be deeply misleading, and I think people are trying to use it for political gain rather than to actually HELP people. It’s an interesting topic within the scope of a public policy discussion, but anyone who tries to justify using it as an excuse to ban gay marriage doesn’t have a moral bone in their bodies.

    1. “Being completely horrible at research isn’t fraud. Innocently misinterpreting your data isn’t fraud. Deliberately misrepresenting something is fraud. Being innocent of fraud does not preclude either of those first two possibilities.”

      Yes, I know that. That’s why I pointed out that the university’s conclusion is that his research was probably not fraudulent. If you’re trying to accuse Regnerus of sloppy work, you’re doing a bad job of substantiating the claim. Dropping subtle and not-so-subtle hints that someone’s research was badly done is injurious to their reputation and consequently, a wicked thing to do if you have no evidence for the charge. Like I said, his research was better than the previous ones and I’m willing to work with what I have.

      That said, perhaps you’re just very upset. How else can you say you don’t care if kids raised in homosexual families are “more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana”??? Seriously!

      Of course some people are drawing the wrong conclusions and using the data for wrong things, but it is very important research. I, for one, think it is a terrible, terrible, thing to send any child to any home in which they would fare so badly if you have a better alternative. So analysis about the kind of homes children do better in tells us a lot about what kind of families the government should encourage. So, while kids doing so badly in homosexual homes might not be a reason to ban homosexual relationships, it would be reason to refrain from encouraging them (by legitimatizing them) or at least allowing them to adopt children. What kind of a person encourages situations and home arrangements that hurt children? A moral one?

  3. I’m not upset over any of this. (Actually, I seem to have upset or worried you with my dismissal of this study’s importance. I promise I’ll explain why you should be neither of these things in a moment). I haven’t read his study, and I’m not going to. A lot of people that I respect have called it out as being of very poor quality. You’re right that I’m not doing a very good job of substantiating that claim, however, because I don’t care. Let’s just pretend that his research is flawless and his conclusions are inerrant and deeply meaningful. What does that tell us?

    It tells us that children who were old enough to answer his questions reported higher-than-average scores for a number of traits we want them not to have. So what does THAT tell us?

    Before we answer that question, I’d like you to consider the social situation in which these kids grew up. Does our society embrace gays, treating them as equals? No, so what do you suppose the effects are on children to see their parents openly ridiculed and discriminated against? Given the stigma against being gay, how do you suppose those kids’ peers reacted when they learned of that whole “gay parents” thing? Sure, some would be accepting, but any with bigoted parents would likely share those discriminatory views.

    Okay, now there’s one more thing we have to ask before we address that question: what is the context in which these statistics occur? If being raised by gay parents makes you 20% more likely to face bad outcomes, what does that bring the total risk factor to? Noting that 0.00012% is 20% more than 0.00010% is what we would call an exercise in bullshit by its actively deceptive use of statistics. This isn’t the only important question we have to address to understand the context. The other one that comes to mind is “what is the likelihood of an unadopted orphan’s facing bad outcomes?” If you can’t answer this question, you have absolutely no intellectual basis for using that 20% figure (or whatever Regnerus concludes) for anything.

    So, what does that statistic tell us? Basically nothing. It shows us a snapshot of what it was like to be raised by gay parents at that particular moment in time. It does not follow that gays are inherently worse parents. It does not follow that adoption by gay parents should be outlawed.

    These studies are used expressly for political purposes by people who either don’t understand statistics or know that their voting bloc doesn’t understand statistics. A less charitable description would be that they are used to enable lies. Politicians present this as if children are being stolen from the arms of heterosexual parents and given to homosexual parents. What we’re dealing with is not whether or not to put children in environments where they’re X percent more likely to face negative outcomes; what we’re dealing with is whether or not those children get adopted into stable families. Please don’t fall into the trap of credulously believing bad statistics or accepting false dichotomies.

    Also, one more thing:

    So analysis about the kind of homes children do better in tells us a lot about what kind of families the government should encourage.

    This is very dangerous reasoning. If it can be shown, statistically, that children raised in Protestant households are more likely to face difficulties than those raised in Catholic households, will you argue that Protestants should be barred from adopting? Think about this sort of thing too before you argue that gays should be forbidden from doing so.

    1. Hearing the words “children” and “sexually molested” in the same sentence always upsets me, but I get even more upset when I hear someone say that he doesn’t care.

      “If it can be shown, statistically, that children raised in Protestant households are more likely to face difficulties than those raised in Catholic households, will you argue that Protestants should be barred from adopting?”

      First, I’ll modify your question. It is not just ‘difficulties’ we’re talking about. We’re talking about depression and suicidal thoughts, requiring mental health therapy, contracting sexually transmitted diseases, being sexually molested, having lower income levels, drinking to get drunk and smoking tobacco and marijuana. So, my answer is “hell yes!”. This is no small issue. Adoption is about giving children better lives than they would have without being adopted. That means two things for people who actually care about children.
      1. In any case where a child would fare so much worse by being adopted by a specific group, adoption should not be granted that group.
      2. In any case where a child would do better if they are adopted by group A than by B, group A should be given preference.

      I’m thinking of issues of abuse and cases where children become likely to engage in life-threatening practices here. No sufficiently moral person could ever wish that a child be subjected to that. I understand that a study like this does not establish causation. If you had read the links I gave you, you would see that that is freely admitted. But sufficient correlation is in my opinion, a good enough reason to avoid something – especially where children are concerned. Walking alone at night might not cause rape, but I’m smart enough to avoid it.

      As you would know if you did read up on this study, a major factor uncovered in this study was family instability i.e. the well established fact that homosexual relationships tend to be very short-lived. This is not something that can be blamed on a hostile society because it is true even where homosexual marriage is legal and widely accepted. So even if you can establish the very hilarious claim that increased incidence of sexual molestation and STDs in children raised by homosexuals is somehow due to prejudice against them by the rest of society, there is still that problem.

      In conclusion, if protestant unions were as unstable as that of homosexuals and if children were likely to be so badly hurt by being adopted into such a family, I would wholeheartedly oppose adoptions by protestants as long as there were better options (i.e as long as there are better families willing to adopt or good care available for the unadopted). Their desire to have children does not supersede the children’s need for a good home. It is a biblical mandate and a pillar of any moral community that the weak and vulnerable should be protected.

      1. You have expressed some very small-minded and misinformed views there, and you seem to have completely disregarded everything I said. This makes me sad. I wish you would seek information from sources that aren’t so biased, but I suppose you’re probably just following your religious teachings.

        Yes, we most certainly can attribute relationship troubles to social pressures. All of those difficulties can come as the result of growing up in an unstable environment.

        The statistics are still completely useless without a context. You’re railing against gays here, but until you know what the equivalent statistics are for single parenting, what the correlations are for socioeconomic status, and so on, you’re just lying. You’re drawing conclusions from inaccurate (and possibly quite flawed!) data, and this is fundamentally dishonest.

      2. I don’t believe I drew any false conclusions. I’m arguing for the statement “if homosexual relationships are bad for children, we should not send children to such families as long as there is a better option”. This does not depend on Regnerus’ study getting the right conclusion. It does not require that homosexual relationships really be bad for children. As we both know, if the antecedent is true, then the whole statement is true. I am not railing against gays. Like I said, the same goes for single parents and protestant families – children should never be put in situations where they are more likely to be hurt if there are other options. I simply have a problem with any society in which the well-being of children is superseded by the desires of the adults and any moral society ought to refrain from such egregious evils. If you have a problem with that, feel free to point it out.

        The only statement I made about gay marriages was that they are unstable and this is backed by data besides Regnerus’. In fact, I thought that everyone knew it. I would be happy to supply you with sources if you want them.

        “This study just doesn’t establish that gay parents are a threat to kids’ well-being.”
        Yes, you have said that before. You have not provided any reasons for believing that. You admitted that you have not read the report but get your opinions from people you respect. I have decided not to challenge that. But I have also decided to table the issue of the report’s accuracy and deal with the implications if it were true.

        ” but until you know what the equivalent statistics are for single parenting, what the correlations are for socioeconomic status, and so on, you’re just lying. You’re drawing conclusions from inaccurate (and possibly quite flawed!) data, and this is fundamentally dishonest.”

        There is one rule on this blog. It’s that you can’t accuse anyone of lying without establishing two things
        1. The person made a statement that was false
        2. The person knew the statement was false at the time
        Now, since I have drawn no conclusion from Regenerus’ data and I have not made any statement I know to be false, you might want to be careful. Our conversations up till this point have been very good. I would very much like them to continue. Once again, if you’re going to accuse Regnerus’ data of being inaccurate and flawed, support it. You can’t just make statements like that.

        Finally – and this point I want to make very clear – if you’re not going to protect children, if you do not think that they should not be given to families where they are more likely to be hurt when there are other options, whether these families are orthodox Jews, homosexuals, Catholics or homosexual, do not say you care about them. Caring about someone means that you will protect them.

        If you wish to continue this conversation, respond with a comment that contains more than just attacks on my character and on non-existent biased sources or red herrings.

        Have a wonderful day.

      3. “if homosexual relationships are bad for children, we should not send children to such families as long as there is a better option”

        This is a dishonest stance to take. You are arguing for a false dichotomy. The options are not “let gays adopt” and “protect children”! The options are “let gays adopt” and “leave children unadopted.” As I have already said, and you have disregarded.

        The only statement I made about gay marriages was that they are unstable and this is backed by data besides Regnerus’. In fact, I thought that everyone knew it. I would be happy to supply you with sources if you want them.

        If you’ve got a source that demonstrates why gay marriages are unstable, it might be worth reading. But claiming “they’re unstable so X” is about as useful an observation as noting that celebrity marriages are unstable–does it mean celebrities shouldn’t be able to adopt? No, because we’re on the same false dichotomy. Not every child is adopted, so the options are “celebrities adopt” and “children don’t get adopted.”

        You admitted that you have not read the report but get your opinions from people you respect.

        Did you even read what I said? I said people I respect have challenged his research, but I then explicitly stated that I was engaging this discussion as if their objections did not exist. My opinions of why this argument is dishonest have nothing to do with them; they are my own conclusions, not the opinions of “people I respect.” I am not accusing his data of being flawed (although many do, and I think you should read them)–I am directly challenging the conclusion you’ve drawn from the data.

        There is one rule on this blog. It’s that you can’t accuse anyone of lying without establishing two things
        1. The person made a statement that was false
        2. The person knew the statement was false at the time

        I have already explained to you why arguing the thing you’re arguing is dishonest, but you continued to argue for it; thus, you should have known your argument was false. I will reiterate my explanation again here:

        You need to have equivalent statistics for several groups before you can make any policy arguments: 1) unadopted children, 2) children adopted by hereosexuals, 3) children adopted by homosexuals, 4) adopted children sorted by adoptive parents’ socioeconomic status. Failing to have data on a minimum of these four groups is dishonest because your argument becomes “I have absolutely no idea how they compare to unadopted children, but look at the outcomes with the gays!” This is not an intellectually honest form of argumentation.

        if you’re not going to protect children

        Here’s the crux of it, isn’t it? You’re not arguing to protect children. You think you are, and I respect that intention, but you’re not. You’re arguing to leave them unadopted, and that hurts children. The only responsible question to ask, assuming the Regnerus data is completely accurate, is how much not being adopted hurts them. Only then can you start to make meaningful comparisons. You haven’t offered any such data, which is why I have called your argument dishonest.

        If you have data on unadopted kids, do share it. In the absence of that, my charge of dishonesty stands.

      4. “1. In any case where a child would fare so much worse by being adopted by a specific group, adoption should not be granted that group.
        2. In any case where a child would do better if they are adopted by group A than by B, group A should be given preference.”

        Those are the two things I am arguing for. Point 1 addresses the issue of how children would fare if they are adopted by a certain group versus if they are not adopted at all. Since those are if statements, “if children would fare worse by being adopted by group A, they should not be adopted”, I don’t need to show that the antecedent is true. I just have to show that if it is true, then the consequent is true. I have drawn no conclusion from Regnerus’ data there.
        One of us is not reading here and I don’t think its me. Now, take a deep breath, read my comments again and try not to reply till you understand them.

    2. In case it wasn’t clear from my last two comments, the idea of children getting hurt in any way deeply upsets me. So I trust you will forgive me if I don’t maintain any semblance of unemotional discourse. 🙂

      1. Don’t get me wrong. I really do care about the well-being of children. This study just doesn’t establish that gay parents are a threat to kids’ well-being.

  4. Oh, I didn’t directly make this point, and now that I’ve posted my comment, I don’t think I should have left it implicit. Instead, let me say it explicitly: his statistics may very well represent an unexpected problem–namely, the irrational hatred of homosexuals–rather than any parenting deficiency on the part of homosexuals with kids. Even if he has established a correlation between those two things, this alone does not demonstrate a causal relationship. (Correlation is not causation and all that.) People are really complicated, and it can be easy to screw up any explanations about why a person (or people) has a given trait.

    1. Demonstrate “why this study is meaningless” – that is what you intended your link to do. I must confess that having read it, I’m less certain about the meaninglessness of the study. That’s partly because I followed the link to the Weekly Standard’s article (which was a lot less one-sided) and partly because I took notes. The only criticisms of the paper in that article are:

      1. The definition of Lesbian mothers and Gay fathers is misleading
      2. Only two of the respondents were raised by homosexual parents for their whole childhood.
      3. The study should have used only children of identifiably homosexual parents

      Other points made which i will point out in case you mistook them for valid criticisms are:
      1. Mark Regnerus does not support gay marriage. No surprises there. We’re smart enough to avoid ad hominens.
      2. The peer review system failed. The only way you can argue that the paper should have been stopped in the peer review process is if you first assume that the paper is flawed. If you then use this to argue that the paper is flawed…
      3. Three of the reviewers were against gay marriage and some had connections to Regnerus. That is also not an argument against Regnerus’ findings.
      4. The research was funded by a conservative group. Well, that’s what happens when liberal groups refuse to fund research on homosexual marriages.

      In fact, the article you linked to was not an analysis of the study, but an article about Darren Sherkat”s opinions on the efficacy of the peer review process that Regnerus’ study underwent. That’s okay. He was afterall, appointed by the university of Texas to do just that. But since the university has said that despite Sherkat’s misgivings there was no scientific misconduct, we should trust the process by which the results were produced and concern ourselves with the content.

      So, why is the study meaningless, according to you? It’s limitations were pointed out by the analysis I linked to which you did not read.

      Before detailing the results of the NFSS, two important points must be made: First, the results do not claim to establish causality between parenting and child outcomes. In other words, the results are not a “report card” on gay parenting, but a report on the average condition of grown children from households of gay and lesbian parents versus those from IBFs. So, for instance, when the study finds that children who have had a parent in a same-sex romantic relationship are much more likely to suffer from depression as young adults than the children who come from IBFs, this does not claim that the gay parent was the cause of the depression in his or her child; simply that such children on average have more depression, for reasons unidentified by the study. That said, however, the study controlled for variables like age, gender, race, level of mother’s education, perceived household income while growing up, the degree of legislative gay-friendliness of the respondent’s home state, and experience of being bullied as a youth. Controls help eliminate alternative explanations for a given outcome, making the causal link between parenting structure and children’s outcomes more likely when the results are statistically significant after controls.

      Second, the kind of gay parenting identified was rarely planned by two gay parents. The study found that the children who were raised by a gay or lesbian parent as little as 15 years ago were usually conceived within a heterosexual marriage, which then underwent divorce or separation, leaving the child with a single parent. That parent then had at least one same-sex romantic relationship, sometimes outside of the child’s home, sometimes within it. To be more specific, among the respondents who said their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship, a minority, 23%, said they had spent at least three years living in the same household with both their mother and her romantic partner. Only 2 out of the 15,000 screened spent a span of 18 years with the same two mothers. Among those who said their father had had a same-sex relationship, 1.1% of children reported spending at least three years together with both men.

      This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. […]

      Therefore, while critics of the NFSS have faulted it for lacking comparisons between children of IBFs and the children of committed and intact gay or lesbian couples, this was attempted, but was not feasible. Despite drawing from a large, representative sample of the U.S. population, and despite using screening tactics designed to boost the number of respondents who reported having had a parent in a same-sex relationship, a very small segment reported having been parented by the same two women or two men for a minimum of three years.

      The article is not, in fact, meaningless.

      Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children. On 25 out of 40 outcomes evaluated by Regnerus, there were statistically significant differences between children from IBFs and those of LMs in many areas that are unambiguously suboptimal. On 11 out of 40 outcomes, there were statistically significant differences between children from IBFs and those who reported having a GF in many areas that are suboptimal. The “no differences” claim is therefore unsound and ought to be replaced by an acknowledgement of difference.

      Acknowledging the differences between the children of IBFs and those from LMs and GFs better accords with the established body of social science over the last 25 years, which finds that children do best when they are raised by their married, biological mother and father. At the turn of the millennium, social scientists widely agreed that children raised by unmarried mothers, divorced parents, cohabiting parents, and step-parents fared worse than children raised by their still-married, biological parents.[8] Although data on gay and lesbian parenting were not yet available at that time, it was difficult to imagine that gay and lesbian parents would be able to accomplish what parents in step-parenting, adoptive, single-parenting, and cohabiting contexts had not been able to do, namely, replicate the optimal child-rearing environment of married, biological-parent homes.

      However, as early as 2001, social scientists working on sexual orientation and parenting began to claim just that, that there were not as many differences as sociologists would expect between outcomes for children in same-sex versus heterosexual unions, and that the differences were not negative, but favorable.[9] Since then, an increase in gay parenting research over the last decade has made similar claims, such that the emergent message from social scientists working in gay parenting has gone in a different direction, alleging that there are no differences in outcomes—and some advantages—for children raised by parents with same-sex behavior.[10]

      By challenging these claims, the Regnerus and Marks papers are consistent with the social science consensus that existed at the turn of the millennium: to be raised in an intact biological family presents clear advantages for children over other forms of parenting. In particular, the NFSS provides evidence that previous generations of social scientists were unable to gather: that children from intact, biological families also out-perform peers who were raised in homes of a parent who had same-sex relationships. Therefore, these two new studies reaffirm—and strengthen—the conviction that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact, biological family.[11]

      The study might have limitations, but it has strengths too and it definitely looks at least as good as those that came before it. Take this from the Weekly Standard article:

      Whatever its faults, Regnerus’s study has unique strengths, even beyond the size and randomness of its sample, that his critics ignore altogether. His commendable attempt to include a diversity of views among his advisers is rare within the guild, where the leftism is unrelieved. So too were his willingness to immediately publish his research materials online and his pledge to make all his data digitally available this fall. Rather than a study of monochromatic and well-to-do lesbians or gay men, he managed to capture the full ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic range of gay America. And his study is one of the first to systematically measure outcomes from the children themselves, rather than simply through the reports of their parents.

      The limitations of Regnerus’s study compare favorably with the shortcomings found routinely in the same-sex literature. It does no credit to the guild that researchers have choked on Regnerus’s paper while happily swallowing dozens of faulty studies over the last 20 years—because, you can’t help but think, those studies were taken as confirming the “no difference” dogma. “If the Regnerus study is to be thrown out,” wrote the Canadian family economist Douglas Allen in a statement supporting Regnerus, “then practically everything else [in the literature] has to go with it.”

      The “no difference” thesis was legitimized in a decree issued by the American Psychological Association in 2005. The issue of Social Science Research in which Regnerus’s paper appears coincidentally contains a study of the 59 studies the APA researcher cited in issuing its decree. Its author, Loren Marks, a sociologist at Louisiana State University, quantifies the weaknesses that Regnerus noticed in his reading of the literature.

      “More than three-fourths (77 percent) of the studies,” writes Marks, “are based on small, nonrepresentative, convenience samples of fewer than 100 participants.” Nearly half did not use a heterosexual comparison group against which the study group could be measured. Many of those that did have a comparison group measured intact, well-to-do lesbian couples against single-parent heterosexual families. Outcomes were in most cases ill-defined and impossible to quantify: “socioemotional development,” for example, and “sex-role behavior.”

      Most of these shortcomings were acknowledged by the researchers themselves in their respective papers, just as Regnerus points out the limitations of his own methods. APA acknowledged the shortcomings too—and then issued its decree anyway, in the most confident terms. But the accumulation of methodological errors calls into question whether any plausible conclusion can be drawn from gay parenting research.

      Frankly, at this point I’m not even sure what we disagree about. Does the study have limitations? Yes. Does it have strengths too? Yes. Does it compare favorably with previous research? Yes. Perhaps you should outline a logically deductive argument supporting the conclusion that Regnerus’ study is meaningless. That will definitely help.

What did you think of my post?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s