• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Some Members of the Gay Community are Not Very Consistent when Quoting Research Findings


ppcoyle

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
1,997
Recently Colm O’Gorman, on the Late Late Show, criticised gay parenting research research based on the so called ‘Regnerus Study’ ( http://www.utexas.edu/opa/wordpress/news/files/Regnerus-Inquiry-Report.pdf ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - Methodological decisions and the evaluation of possible effects of different family structures on children: The new family structures survey (NFSS) ) – in attacking the Regnerus findings he told the audience that the major problem was that there were only 175 lesbian parent, and 73 gay parent cases in the sample.

However, on Prime Time this week Matt Krivinowsky (?) referred to recent research from Susan Golombok which, according to him, clearly showed that there are no differences in outcomes for children whether that child is raised by hetereosexual, gay or lesbian couples Prime Time - RTÉ Player (from time 16.45 onwards) . The research he referred to is mentioned in this link Children in gay adoptions at no disadvantage - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent . Details about the sample size can be found at Study Says Kids of Gay Parents Are Thriving Just As Well as Heterosexual Counterparts | G Philly

The study, which chronicles the experience of 130 adoptive families (49 heterosexual, 41 by gay men and 40 by lesbians), showed “markedly more similarities than differences between family types,” says Professor Susan Golombok, director of the Centre for Family Research and co-author of the report
So some proponents of gay marriage, such as Colm O’Gorman, aggressively rubbish some studies because of their sample size while at the same time deliberately ignoring the same argument with respect other studies on the issue that they quote when actively promoting the case for gay marriage as Matt Krivinowsky (?) did. Is this not blatant hypocrisy?

The statistical reality is that it is impossible to generalise to any population of interest about outcomes for children from sample sizes of the order of 30/40 in the sub groups looked at. A statistically representative minimum sample size of 300 is needed from each sub group before any defensible generalisations (with stated limitations in conclusion drawing) can be made. Even then, ideally, further replication studies are required from different researchers before a high level of confidence can be placed in the findings.

Susan Golombok’s research in this area is notorious for making sweeping generalisations about outcomes for children based on what is methodologically very unsound research e.g. Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early adulthood where she compared 27 heterosexual parenting situations to 20 lesbian parenting situations, and then bizarrely (from a methodological perspective) concluded that “The findings of this study show that children raised by solo heterosexual mothers or lesbian mothers from infancy continue to function well as they enter adulthood (sic)”. Of course all she has sown is that she generalised from a meaningless piece of ‘research’, using two samples of 27 and 20, to the 7,000,000,000 other humans (ignoring aspects such as socio-economic, demographic, ethnic, cultural, educational background factors) on Planet Earth.

Most of the extant research with respect to gay and lesbian parenting is not unlike that garnered by an opinion pollster who bases his or her opinion on the following research methodology - “I'm off down to the pub tonight to do an opinion poll on the current standing of our political parties and I am going to ask RTE to publicise, without any validation, the results when I have done the analysis on the back of a cigarette pack!” .
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,255
O.K.

Am really looking forward to voting in favor of gay marriage. Landslide I'm predicting. ;)
 

FrankSpeaks

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
4,625
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,331
Recently Colm O’Gorman, on the Late Late Show, criticised gay parenting research research based on the so called ‘Regnerus Study’ ( http://www.utexas.edu/opa/wordpress/news/files/Regnerus-Inquiry-Report.pdf ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - Methodological decisions and the evaluation of possible effects of different family structures on children: The new family structures survey (NFSS) ) – in attacking the Regnerus findings he told the audience that the major problem was that there were only 175 lesbian parent, and 73 gay parent cases in the sample.
Actually that's wrong. I don't even remember O'Gorman mentioning the sample size and if he did, it certainly wasn't the focus of his criticism.

The focus of his criticism was that a study that claimed to be about gay parenting actually studied children of parents who had ever had a homosexual sexual relationship. So when the anti-gay marriage side bandy it about as a reason to oppose stable, same-sex couples raising children, it is ridiculous to use a study that compared stable heterosexual couples with parents who, at some point, had a gay sexual relationship.

Why? Because the latter group will have included closeted parents, parents who were in prison, parents who had separated - all of which can give rise to disadvantages for kids.

The sample really wasn't the issue, it was the methodology he was critical of.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,897
[video=youtube;X3wFHEm33Aw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3wFHEm33Aw[/video]
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,885
Don't most homosexual guys prefer to pursue straight men? Heard that recently and apparently it's true.
 

shoneen

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
1,845
I'm not too worried about the whole gay marriage thing. Hell, welcome aboard, be as miserable as the rest of us :)

But it is depressing how supposedly intelligent people are willing to skew results and interpretations to suit their own view. Not sure if hypocrisy is too strong a word. They just don't seem able to see the contradiction. When "they" do it, it's an outrage, but when "we" do it, it's OK.
 

Con Gallagher

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
2,413
..
So some proponents of gay marriage, such as Colm O’Gorman, aggressively rubbish some studies because of their sample size while at the same time deliberately ignoring the same argument with respect other studies on the issue that they quote when actively promoting the case for gay marriage as Matt Krivinowsky (?) did. Is this not blatant hypocrisy?
...
No, it is not blatant hypocrisy. It is not even hypocrisy.
It's two different people referring to different reports on different days on different programes.
I wasn't aware that proponents of marriage equality* had to uniquely check with every other member of the campaign so that their evidence is always ad idem.
(btw I think the correct spelling of the latter speaker is Max Kryzanowski).

*it's a better term than same-sex or gay marriage which insinuates that a marriage between a same-sex couple and and opposite-sex couple are a different institution.

The government should legislate to amend the 2004 Civil Registration Act, the bill (presumed Constitutional) should then be referred by the President to the Supreme Court who can decide if a Referendum is actually required, rather than jumping to asking the majority to "grant" equality/civil rights to a minority.
 
Last edited:

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,331
I'm not too worried about the whole gay marriage thing. Hell, welcome aboard, be as miserable as the rest of us :)

But it is depressing how supposedly intelligent people are willing to skew results and interpretations to suit their own view. Not sure if hypocrisy is too strong a word. They just don't seem able to see the contradiction. When "they" do it, it's an outrage, but when "we" do it, it's OK.
But that only works if you take the OP at face value. Which would be fine, except he's wrong. O'Gorman clearly explained why the study was bogus, and it wasn't because of its sample size.
 

TARZAN

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
4,454
but that only works if you take the op at face value. Which would be fine, except he's wrong. O'gorman clearly explained why the study was bogus, and it wasn't because of its sample size.
he should have mentioned the sample size being at fault as its a fact that it is to small.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,066
When I hear of research from Texas Bible thumpers spring to mind.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,331
he should have mentioned the sample size being at fault as its a fact that it is to small.
But it doesn't matter how big the sample was - that study being discussed was bogus from the get go. So the issue of sample size was irrelevant.
 

Politics matters

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
6,018
Recently Colm O’Gorman, on the Late Late Show, criticised gay parenting research research based on the so called ‘Regnerus Study’ ( http://www.utexas.edu/opa/wordpress/news/files/Regnerus-Inquiry-Report.pdf ScienceDirect.com - Social Science Research - Methodological decisions and the evaluation of possible effects of different family structures on children: The new family structures survey (NFSS) ) – in attacking the Regnerus findings he told the audience that the major problem was that there were only 175 lesbian parent, and 73 gay parent cases in the sample.

However, on Prime Time this week Matt Krivinowsky (?) referred to recent research from Susan Golombok which, according to him, clearly showed that there are no differences in outcomes for children whether that child is raised by hetereosexual, gay or lesbian couples Prime Time - RTÉ Player (from time 16.45 onwards) . The research he referred to is mentioned in this link Children in gay adoptions at no disadvantage - Health News - Health & Families - The Independent . Details about the sample size can be found at Study Says Kids of Gay Parents Are Thriving Just As Well as Heterosexual Counterparts | G Philly



So some proponents of gay marriage, such as Colm O’Gorman, aggressively rubbish some studies because of their sample size while at the same time deliberately ignoring the same argument with respect other studies on the issue that they quote when actively promoting the case for gay marriage as Matt Krivinowsky (?) did. Is this not blatant hypocrisy?

The statistical reality is that it is impossible to generalise to any population of interest about outcomes for children from sample sizes of the order of 30/40 in the sub groups looked at. A statistically representative minimum sample size of 300 is needed from each sub group before any defensible generalisations (with stated limitations in conclusion drawing) can be made. Even then, ideally, further replication studies are required from different researchers before a high level of confidence can be placed in the findings.

Susan Golombok’s research in this area is notorious for making sweeping generalisations about outcomes for children based on what is methodologically very unsound research e.g. Children raised in mother-headed families from infancy: a follow-up of children of lesbian and single heterosexual mothers, at early adulthood where she compared 27 heterosexual parenting situations to 20 lesbian parenting situations, and then bizarrely (from a methodological perspective) concluded that “The findings of this study show that children raised by solo heterosexual mothers or lesbian mothers from infancy continue to function well as they enter adulthood (sic)”. Of course all she has sown is that she generalised from a meaningless piece of ‘research’, using two samples of 27 and 20, to the 7,000,000,000 other humans (ignoring aspects such as socio-economic, demographic, ethnic, cultural, educational background factors) on Planet Earth.

Most of the extant research with respect to gay and lesbian parenting is not unlike that garnered by an opinion pollster who bases his or her opinion on the following research methodology - “I'm off down to the pub tonight to do an opinion poll on the current standing of our political parties and I am going to ask RTE to publicise, without any validation, the results when I have done the analysis on the back of a cigarette pack!” .
The normalisation of homosexuality into the Western nuclear family has to be the worst crime the left has ever commited against society.

Gay adoption is a form of child abuse.
 
Top