- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: Same-Sex Parenting Harms Children
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:29 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:29 pm to RollTide1987
Water is wet
0
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:31 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
No one needs a study for this. People are either honest about it, or they aren't.
This logic is precisely why we need studies.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:33 pm to Salmon
quote:So you're saying that ultimately it doesn't matter if you have two same-sex parents or a more traditional family unit? Kind of goes against the "common knowledge" that everyone is admitting to in this thread.
because every situation is different
the majority of the kids, even in this very flawed study, still demonstrated average behaviors
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:34 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Well if you're going to discuss a study, and then argue you had some universal knowledge, then you should "know" why science studies things and "know" how to interpet the study of the concepts you "knew." In other words, you clearly don't "know" what you professed to know; you believe instead.
LOL your posts boils down to "people shouldn't post when they don't even understand the topic and or aren't able to discuss it logically"
And if you're going to talk about some force "dumbing down" America, then wouldn't you want to be aware of your own "dumbing down" so you can "smart it up" a bit?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:37 pm to mindbreaker
quote:I think this goes back to my comment about promoting and incentivizing those ideal family units. It's not "worth it" for many couples to have their own kids much less adopt others. Perhaps if there were some better incentives things would be different.
there are over 100,000 kids that need adoption and that number has stayed consistent over the last decade. The fact is there aren't enough traditional families out there adopting kids for this to be a valid argument.
Culturally, I think we need to stop promoting homosexual parenting as equal to heterosexual parenting and it shouldn't be considered "hateful", "bigoted", or "homophobic" to suggest that our male/female couples should be striving to have more children and stay together for the sake of our future while advising against all other forms of "families" that don't promote the ideal.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:I don't think he's saying that. He's saying that there are multiple factors that contribute to the outcome, even if this terrible study is true.
So you're saying that ultimately it doesn't matter if you have two same-sex parents or a more traditional family unit?
So when there are multiple factors, and it's likely not even the most important factor contributing to "harm," then this should be down the list of concerns and focus.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:41 pm to RollTide1987
Interesting findings.
I'm curious if I would consider 20 to be a large enough sample size to truly consider it scientific, especially considering that only 3 were gay couples. I mean, one might infer that it is specifically lesbian couples that are bad for children.
Also, reading over the entire article, there's a lot of flawed logic and methodologies utilized.
It should also be noted that the person making the claim did not actually conduct the study themselves.
With only 20, a comparison of 37% to 7% could easily be a statistical anomaly. If 2 kids less have suicidal thoughts (the numbers I'm referencing), then the number drops from 37% to 25%. When the sample size is this small, it only takes a couple of deviations to skew the numbers drastically in one direction or another.
I'm not saying that the point they're attempting to make is correct or incorrect; I'm pointing out that the methodology and science used is terribly flawed.
This will only gain traction because people will use it to confirm previously held beliefs, but it honestly doesn't prove anything on its own. Additional, more thorough studies are needed for that.
I'm curious if I would consider 20 to be a large enough sample size to truly consider it scientific, especially considering that only 3 were gay couples. I mean, one might infer that it is specifically lesbian couples that are bad for children.
Also, reading over the entire article, there's a lot of flawed logic and methodologies utilized.
It should also be noted that the person making the claim did not actually conduct the study themselves.
With only 20, a comparison of 37% to 7% could easily be a statistical anomaly. If 2 kids less have suicidal thoughts (the numbers I'm referencing), then the number drops from 37% to 25%. When the sample size is this small, it only takes a couple of deviations to skew the numbers drastically in one direction or another.
I'm not saying that the point they're attempting to make is correct or incorrect; I'm pointing out that the methodology and science used is terribly flawed.
This will only gain traction because people will use it to confirm previously held beliefs, but it honestly doesn't prove anything on its own. Additional, more thorough studies are needed for that.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Your comment isn't hateful, it's just an ignorant simplification of the issue.
shouldn't be considered "hateful", "bigoted", or "homophobic" to suggest that our male/female couples should be striving to have more children and stay together for the sake of our future while advising against all other forms of "families" that don't promote the ideal.
In other words, if we care about the outcomes of children, then we should be focusing on the most important contributors of outcomes (well-adjusted, loving, stability, etc.).
So focusing a less significant contributor of those outcomes, regarding a variable that is less frequently occurring anyways, is counterproductive and misplaced.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:48 pm to SleauxPlay
quote:
This logic is precisely why we need studies.
I see your point. People completely ignoring common sense does result in these types of studies being necessary.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 12:50 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Well if you're going to discuss a study, and then argue you had some universal knowledge, then you should "know" why science studies things and "know" how to interpet the study of the concepts you "knew." In other words, you clearly don't "know" what you professed to know; you believe instead.
And if you're going to talk about some force "dumbing down" America, then wouldn't you want to be aware of your own "dumbing down" so you can "smart it up" a bit?
Sir we are in full agreement that people who don't know what they are talking about should shut the frick up LOL
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:14 pm to skrayper
quote:20 wouldn't be a sufficient sample for any single random variable randomly drawn from a population (e.g., flipping a coin 20 times). The rule of thumb from the Law of Large Numbers is a minimum of a sample size of 30 as a lower bound to approximate to the variable's probability distribution. And that is under those perfect conditions, for a single variable to approximate to the likelihood.
I'm curious if I would consider 20 to be a large enough sample size to truly consider it scientific, especially considering that only 3 were gay couples.
When you start talking about variability and statistical significance then the sample size will need to be much larger. Then considering imperfect sampling and modeling multiple known variables, then the need increases. And since they are likely to be a number of other variables that can't be controlled for, it needs to be even larger.
In other words, the sample size would need to he factors larger to even consider it a representation of population phenomenon and drawing conclusions.
In my opinion, this Study should never have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, even if it was studying something trivial, let alone something that is based on something that is already controversial, especially since it was the sole focus.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
So you're saying that ultimately it doesn't matter if you have two same-sex parents or a more traditional family unit? Kind of goes against the "common knowledge" that everyone is admitting to in this thread.
No. I'm saying that is the most optimal situation. But almost no one raises children in the optimal situations, so I see it pointless to go around shaming people for it.
I'm not going to shame a single mom for her situation, just like I'm not going to shame a gay couple, as long as they all love and provide as much as they are capable to the child.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:23 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Catholic University of America,
biased much?
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:28 pm to AUstar
Why only 3 m m families?
I suspect its because no men have biological clock demanding sperm donor.
I suspect its because no men have biological clock demanding sperm donor.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 1:29 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Sir we are in full agreement that people who don't know what they are talking about should shut the frick up LOL
Well then I would have to leave this message board. But this is why this type of study that shouldn't be published in its current capacity. It's like the Wakefield Autism study, or the Hurricane masculinity/feminity name study, poor science and, more importantly, improper conclusions, do more harm than good. But too often those studies are headline grabbing, so journals make poor decisions.
In fact, I've seen it, to a lesser degree, from reviews of a journal that was rejected. I got the sense that if we overstated our conclusions about interesting finding, he would have viewed it more favorably. And when we refused to do so, because we didn't have the data to do so, he (could have been a she) was unreasonably defensive.
I've been troubled by this trend to expect science to find and/or explain everything in one study, or at least act like it does. So when a study does that, like this one, when it shouldn't, then it does a disservice to science itself.
Posted on 9/1/17 at 2:06 pm to Salmon
quote:I'm not talking about shaming anyone. I'm talking about actively promoting behaviors that are best for our children and nation. No one wants to come out and say that heterosexuals procreating, marrying, and staying together to raise their children is the ideal situation for our society because there will be cries of homophobia, racism, bigotry, and the like because reality doesn't jive with the feelings of others.
No. I'm saying that is the most optimal situation. But almost no one raises children in the optimal situations, so I see it pointless to go around shaming people for it.
I'm not going to shame a single mom for her situation, just like I'm not going to shame a gay couple, as long as they all love and provide as much as they are capable to the child.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News