Full rights for the LGBT community.

Corkfeen

Bb,it has been heavily debunked. In itself,it's highly suspicious when authors won't follow the peer review process. It indicates that it won't stick up against scrutiny if it would,it'd make sense to put it through review. This adds credibility to studies.So,do you have any peer review sources or are you just going to complain that I won't give the benefit of the doubt to people who won't follow basic standards of a field?

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've had family from overseas visiting for Easter and was tour guide yesterday and today is the day we celebrate Easter here so it'll be tomorrow before I'll have the opportunity to give this document the attention it deserves. I give you my word that I will read it, primarily for myself. This is an important issue and feel obligated as a citizen to be informed so as to make the right judgements.

For balance I've been trying to cross reference it with a work by two quantitative analysts which finds many of the studies listed as agenda-driven and flawed.

No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting

by Robert Lerner, Ph.D. and Althea Nagai, Ph.D.

You know it's a bit hypocritical for you to describe the studies analysed in the document (I say document because it hasn't been peer reviewed which, frankly makes it about as useful as a roll of toilet paper) as agenda-driven and flawed while linking to a document commissioned by an anti-gay marriage organisation.

In any case, Lerner and Nagai's conclusions are deeply flawed for several reasons.

Firstly, Lerner and Nagai recommend:

1) Use probability samples. There i s no substitute. Only these offer any basis for scientific generalization to larger, representative populations.
2) Ignore studies based on non-probability samples…

3) Especially ignore studies where participants recruit other participants. These are so subject to bias, that the limited results cannot be trusted.

This recommendation is, well, bullsh1t. The use of non-random samples is not a valid criticism. We are talking about niche data here and you don't get to be picky with niche data. As has been noted previously in the literature (e.g. Meezan & Rauch, Rosenfeld) LGBT headed families make up a very small (~4%) of households in the USA. This makes random sampling problematic. However there are statistical tests available to compensate for this. After all, imagine a medical study being done on a specific form of skin cancer. Exactly how many patients with that disease do you imagine there would be in a given country. Certainly not enough for random sampling.
Secondly, the review articles and meta-analyses conducted previously have discussed these problems and shown that they are not of serious detriment to the conclusions of the studies. In fact, in response to an article by Steven Nock, where he says almost verbatim what Lerner and Nagai claim:

"Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research."

Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz point out:

"If the court were to accept Professor Nock’s primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology. The vast majority of research in child development, and in the field of psychology more broadly, would be invalidated as unscientific. The research design of the studies on lesbian and gay parenting that Professor Nock criticizes is by no means peculiar to or below the generally accepted scientific standards of the field. On the contrary, most of the research designs used in these studies characterize predominant methods employed throughout the entire discipline of psychology. In essence, Professor Nock appears to be claiming that psychologists would have to become demographers in order for their work to have scientific value."

It is also important to note as Corkfeen points out, that the authors seem quite selective in their criticisms, having published other work of their own which employs the same methodological flaws they claim the parenting research does.

Finally, and above all, it should be pointed out that this document was published in 2001. In the intervening 13 years we have had several large-scale studies of the type gay marriage opponents claim not to exist and these studies have borne out the same conclusions as the smaller studies. So the conclusions of Lerner and Nagai, had they even been valid at the time are now obsolete and redundant.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Clearly such a policy would be racist and discriminatory.
Clear to whom?

Not the National Association of Black Social Workers

So what? I'm sure you probably know what an appeal to authority is? The point is that there is no reason to suggest that race is a factor in determining good parents. So the suggestion that a white child should be placed with white parents is without any scientific foundation.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I absolutely agree that the best candidates available should be chosen. There is nothing intrinsic in black, white, gay or straight person that makes them a good or bad parent. However, ethnicity and whether the marriage unit consists of a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman are variables that need to be considered; at least until there is a definitive study that suggests otherwise

Yes, and I have already posted such definitive studies. Studies which you already have committed to read. And yet here you are in the meantime, posting as if there were no such studies. This seems from my perspective to be a degree of soapboxing on your part BB.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which there may be. The adopted child's welfare. If a definitive study was released which conclusively showed that an adopted child's life is more difficult and that face more problems as adults would you accept a policy of actively trying to find suitable husband/wife families before suitable gay couples are considered.

To reiterate, THERE ARE DEFINITIVE STUDIES. I have already posted them in this thread. And to answer your question, even if there were definitive studies which conclusively showed marked advantages for opposite-sex parents (which there isn't), would I accept a policy as described above? Honestly, I don't know? In that eventuality then there would have to be a real and substantial debate about balancing equality with child welfare and I'm not sure where I would come down on that. However, fortunately I don't have to because the science on this issue is crystal clear.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Obviously in this case the gay people would provide the better home. The "ideal" gay home would be a far better environment for a great number of children in Foster care and with abusive or negligent straight couples. I am not disputing this. My point is that we have a responsibility to place parentless children in the BEST AVAILABLE home.

OK, now at least we're getting somewhere. Yes, children should be placed in the best available home. No one has said any different. However, right now gay couples are categorically prohibited from being adoptive parents. They can't even be evaluated as potential adoptive parents. Do you think that is right? Shouldn't gay parents at least be reviewed alongside other potential parents? That is the burning question of this debate.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Racially motivated. Of course. And they were set up in '72 - after the civil rights movement, and well into the black power movement. More Bobby Seale than Martin Luther King.

I'm afraid you are mistaken again.

NABSW was created during the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement on May 8, 1968 in San Francisco, California by a group of Black Social Workers who were convened for the National Conference on Social Welfare
http://nabsw.org/?page=History

Brown Bomber

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You know it's a bit hypocritical for you to describe the studies analysed in the document (I say document because it hasn't been peer reviewed which, frankly makes it about as useful as a roll of toilet paper) as agenda-driven and flawed while linking to a document commissioned by an anti-gay marriage organisation.

I didn't describe them as anything.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In any case, Lerner and Nagai's conclusions are deeply flawed for several reasons.

Firstly, Lerner and Nagai recommend:

1) Use probability samples. There i s no substitute. Only these offer any basis for scientific generalization to larger, representative populations.
2) Ignore studies based on non-probability samples…

3) Especially ignore studies where participants recruit other participants. These are so subject to bias, that the limited results cannot be trusted.

This recommendation is, well, bullsh1t. The use of non-random samples is not a valid criticism. We are talking about niche data here and you don't get to be picky with niche data. As has been noted previously in the literature (e.g. Meezan & Rauch, Rosenfeld) LGBT headed families make up a very small (~4%) of households in the USA. This makes random sampling problematic. However there are statistical tests available to compensate for this. After all, imagine a medical study being done on a specific form of skin cancer. Exactly how many patients with that disease do you imagine there would be in a given country. Certainly not enough for random sampling.
Secondly, the review articles and meta-analyses conducted previously have discussed these problems and shown that they are not of serious detriment to the conclusions of the studies. In fact, in response to an article by Steven Nock, where he says almost verbatim what Lerner and Nagai claim:

"Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research."

Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz point out:

"If the court were to accept Professor Nock’s primary criticisms of these studies, it would have to dismiss virtually the entire discipline of psychology. The vast majority of research in child development, and in the field of psychology more broadly, would be invalidated as unscientific. The research design of the studies on lesbian and gay parenting that Professor Nock criticizes is by no means peculiar to or below the generally accepted scientific standards of the field. On the contrary, most of the research designs used in these studies characterize predominant methods employed throughout the entire discipline of psychology. In essence, Professor Nock appears to be claiming that psychologists would have to become demographers in order for their work to have scientific value."

The psychology Department at UC Davis say differently.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/fact_sample.html

With a hard-to-reach population (e.g., gay people or persons who engage in homosexual behavior), a series of studies with nonprobability samples can suggest rough estimates of the proportion of the population manifesting various characteristics. When similar results are obtained repeatedly with many different nonprobability samples, the likelihood that those results apply to the population is greater than when only a single nonprobability sample is used. Nevertheless, inferences based on such data must be cautious because of the possibility of hidden systematic bias.
Strictly speaking, inferences cannot be drawn from a nonprobability sample about the proportion of the population manifesting (or not manifesting) a particular characteristic. Realistically, however, funding limitations and the methodological difficulties of sampling a relatively small and partially hidden population have usually prohibited the use of probability samples in research on sexual orientation.
It is extremely important, therefore, that findings obtained with convenience samples be critically evaluated. Readers should always ask the following questions:

• What types of people were systematically excluded from the sample?
• What types of people were over-represented in the sample?
• Have the findings been replicated by different researchers using a variety of data-collection methods with different samples?

They quite clearly stress caution.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It is also important to note as Corkfeen points out, that the authors seem quite selective in their criticisms, having published other work of their own which employs the same methodological flaws they claim the parenting research does.

I don't see as relevant at all. It is essentially saying "you too!".

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Finally, and above all, it should be pointed out that this document was published in 2001. In the intervening 13 years we have had several large-scale studies of the type gay marriage opponents claim not to exist and these studies have borne out the same conclusions as the smaller studies. So the conclusions of Lerner and Nagai, had they even been valid at the time are now obsolete and redundant.

Hardly obsolete and redundant if the problem persists, even less so if people are going to be claiming "30 years of research".

_Redzer_

I take it you're just going to fight anything that doesn't support your views, and overlook the obvious flaws in the studies that do, bb.

I think that's the real agenda here.

Corkfeen

Bb, if this is such a landmark study showing up all the biases and issues in the studies. Can you explain why they won't peer review it? Surely,it would be in their best interests to do so. Very odd,isn't it...

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I absolutely agree that the best candidates available should be chosen. There is nothing intrinsic in black, white, gay or straight person that makes them a good or bad parent. However, ethnicity and whether the marriage unit consists of a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman are variables that need to be considered; at least until there is a definitive study that suggests otherwise
...............

I think this is already covered back here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89960148&postcount=590
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89961707&postcount=595

For balance I've been trying to cross reference it with a work by two
quantitative analysts which finds many of the studies listed as agenda-driven
and flawed.

No Basis: What the Studies Don't
Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting

by Robert Lerner, Ph.D. and Althea Nagai, Ph.D.

"for balance" you lift that from a site called
http://protectmarriage.com/who-we-are?
Whose purpose appears to be to block gay marriage?

Dear o dear.
http://amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/02/critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards/

Nodin

Corkfeen wrote: »

Bb, if this is such a landmark study showing up all the biases and issues in the studies. Can you explain why they won't peer review it? Surely,it would be in their best interests to do so. Very odd,isn't it...

I've a good guess.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Bb, if this is such a landmark study showing up all the biases and issues in the studies. Can you explain why they won't peer review it? Surely,it would be in their best interests to do so. Very odd,isn't it...

We could focus on that but what is the point? It has no baring at all on the merits of their argument.

Either the criticisms are valid, which they certainly appear to be to me on the face of it, or they aren't.

Why don't you review it yourself and if they are wrong explain why?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

I think this is already covered back here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89960148&postcount=590
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89961707&postcount=595





"for balance" you lift that from a site called
http://protectmarriage.com/who-we-are?
Whose purpose appears to be to block gay marriage?

Dear o dear.
http://amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/02/critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards/

Dear oh dear indeed. We've covered this already.

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm afraid you are mistaken again.

NABSW was created during the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement on May 8, 1968 in San Francisco, California by a group of Black Social Workers who were convened for the National Conference on Social Welfare
http://nabsw.org/?page=History

It wasn't a product of the civil rights movement at all, it was a product of the black power movement. A fact which should be self evident in the ethos and name of the organisation. Racially exclusive? Check (unlike civil rights organisations). Focus on self-determination, rather than integration? check.

Like I said - more Bobby Sale than Martin Luther King. And definitely racially motivated.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We could focus on that but what is the point? It has no baring at all on the merits of their argument.

Either the criticisms are valid, which they certainly appear to be to me on the face of it, or they aren't.

Why don't you review it yourself and if they are wrong explain why?

The argument hasn't been subjected to any normal scrutiny, and the methodology employed in forming that argument are at odds with the authors' own suggested best practise. That should be enough to underline the lack of validity to those arguments.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Dear oh dear indeed. We've covered this already.
............

One has form. They are allied with an interest group. That there is clearly grounds for suspicion. Add in problems with "methodology" and the lack of peer review and - o shock - its another wingnut with a doctorate using supposed respectability to push fringe views.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Dear oh dear indeed. We've covered this already.

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Except that none of the above applies here. You've trotted out a non-peer-reviewed document, commissioned by an organisation openly opposed to gay marriage, with a clear agenda, and authored by someone with, again, a clear reactionary agenda. You've claimed to have done so on the basis of 'balance', despite the fact that the studies you're disputing the accuracy of, are peer-reviewed, primarily neutral to the cultural debate, and in no case commissioned by a body engaged in such a partisan position.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Except that none of the above applies here.

On the contrary.

The reality is that a bunch of people here rather than judge the claims objectively on it's merits instead rushed to google and searched for "Report X debunked" and all came back here with the same fallacious argument.

All taken from the same obscure comic book writer's blog. This guy: http://www.hereville.com/about-the-cartoonist/

Allow me to demonstrate how it applies here.

1. Two PHD's makes the claim that the research into same-sex parenting is flawed.
2. Alastair asserts that The PHD's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of the claim that the research is flawed
3. Therefore the claim that the research is flawed is false.

Do you really dispute this?

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false

alastair wrote: »

a non-peer-reviewed document,

Explain how this makes their claims false.

alastair wrote: »

commissioned by an organisation openly opposed to gay marriage, with a clear agenda,

Explain how this makes their claims false.

alastair wrote: »

and authored by someone with, again, a clear reactionary agenda.

Explain how this makes their claims false.

sillyoulfool

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Explain how this makes their claims false.
Explain how this makes their claims false.
Explain how this makes their claims false.

It makes their claims highly suspect as they are clearly biased from the outset and therefore are likely to only consider evidence that suits their agenda.
There "research" has not been peer reviewed and is at odds with non biased, peer reviewed, accepted academic and social scientific research.
Consequently their claims must be disregarded in favour of real, scientific, unbiased, peer reviewed research.

Brown Bomber

sillyoulfool wrote: »

It makes their claims highly suspect as they are clearly biased from the outset and therefore are likely to only consider evidence that suits their agenda.
There "research" has not been peer reviewed and is at odds with non biased, peer reviewed, accepted academic and social scientific research.
Consequently their claims must be disregarded in favour of real, scientific, unbiased, peer reviewed research.

Could you just answer the actual questions you quoted instead...?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On the contrary.

The reality is that a bunch of people here rather than judge the claims objectively on it's merits instead rushed to google and searched for "Report X debunked" and all came back here with the same fallacious argument.

All taken from the same obscure comic book writer's blog. This guy: http://www.hereville.com/about-the-cartoonist/

Allow me to demonstrate how it applies here.

1. Two PHD's makes the claim that the research into same-sex parenting is flawed.
2. Alastair asserts that The PHD's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of the claim that the research is flawed
3. Therefore the claim that the research is flawed is false.

Do you really dispute this?

Explain how this makes their claims false.
Explain how this makes their claims false.
Explain how this makes their claims false.

Actually, I'm pointing out that what you present as 'balance' is no such thing. Is the report peer-reviewed? Are the studies you are attempting to 'balance' commissioned by groups with an ideological agenda? The methodology applied by the author of the supposedly 'balanced' study actually fails on the basis that the same author insists is required for accuracy. The falsehood is your claim to presenting 'balance'. The report itself is too undermined to establish if it contains any truth - given that it's methodology and review are entirely flawed.

Oh, and bonus demerit for you - another appeal to authority argument, rounded off with an Ad Hominem. The irony of at all in the context of this post!

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you just answer the actual questions you quoted instead...?

If you're not prepared to hear an answer you don't like, don't ask.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Actually, I'm pointing out that what you present as 'balance' is no such thing. Is the report peer-reviewed? Are the studies you are attempting to 'balance' commissioned by groups with an ideological agenda? The methodology applied by the author of the supposedly 'balanced' study actually fails on the basis that the same author insists is required for accuracy. The falsehood is your claim to presenting 'balance'. The report itself is too undermined to establish if it contains any truth - given that it's methodology and review are entirely flawed.

Misrepresenting me seems to have become habitual with you. I hope it is unintentional.

I didn't present the work we are discussing as "balanced", that remains to be seen. I said I would be attempting to balance the document by the APA, who are pro-Gay adoption with this research so as to attempt to get a holistic view.

Otherwise you are just repeating yourself. Either you can prove the claims of the study false or you can't. Which is it?

It should be easy to do. Their criticisms of the research are right there in front of you and very specific.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Misrepresenting me seems to have become habitual with you. I hope it is unintentional.

I'm more than happy that I'm representing your position accurately.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I didn't present the work we are discussing as "balanced", that remains to be seen. I said I would be attempting to balance the document by the APA, who are pro-Gay adoption with this research so as to attempt to get a holistic view.

You claim you're balancing the argument with a document that simply doesn't comply with the same neutrality and scientific rigor that the other studies apply. That's no 'balance' at all. The APA has no agenda with regard to gay adoption - you're confusing their position, following studies which show no problems with gay adoption, with a bias. One organisation with a pre-determined agenda, and one without. It's not that tricky to understand the difference.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Otherwise you are just repeating yourself. Either you can prove the claims of the study false or you can't. Which is it?

The report is invalidated for the reasons repeated multiple times already. Without review, it's simply one opinion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It should be easy to do. Their criticisms of the research are right there in front of you and very specific.

The author chose not to test his hypotheses before his peers. That should tell you something about the merit, or otherwise, of his claims.

aloyisious

@BB... putting it quite easily, building an argument on quicksand result's in it's loss. If one then continues to build there, ignoring the fact that it is not terra firma, one's credibility is at doubt. What's needed from you now to support your side of the argument are solid factual answers, not more questions and requests for studies to examine. There's enough study-data out there to break several sewage recycling plants in one movement.

Meanwhile, I wish everyone of a certain belief a good Easter-day.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

I'm more than happy that I'm representing your position accurately.


You claim you're balancing the argument with a document that simply doesn't comply with the same neutrality and scientific rigor that the other studies apply. That's no 'balance' at all. The APA has no agenda with regard to gay adoption - you're confusing their position, following studies which show no problems with gay adoption, with a bias. One organisation with a pre-determined agenda, and one without. It's not that tricky to understand the difference.


The report is invalidated for the reasons repeated multiple times already. Without review, it's simply one opinion.


The author chose not to test his hypotheses before his peers. That should tell you something about the merit, or otherwise, of his claims.

What it doesn't tell us is if their claims are true or false.

What your comments say to me is that you are incapable of reviewing evidence yourself and drawing your own conclusions. I'm quite sure that this isn't the case. Everything has been presented to you in black and white. If what they claim is false, then explain why.

Have you even read the document you dismiss out of hand? Do you also reject pharma-funded clinical trials?

oscarBravo

Brown Bomber, would you mind answering this question for me, please:

oscarBravo wrote: »

f a gay couple is evaluated for suitability to adopt a child, is there always, as an axiomatic principle, a better-suited hetero couple available to adopt that child instead?

If your answer is "yes", you have to explain why you believe so. If your answer is "no", your entire argument in this thread is null and void.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why don't you review it yourself and if they are wrong explain why?

oldrnwisr reviewed it, and explained what's wrong with it. You ignored that explanation.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What it doesn't tell us is if their claims are true or false.

Except I'm not saying their claims are true or false - simply invalidated. I'm saying your claim to 'balancing' the argument, is false.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What your comments say to me is that you are incapable of reviewing evidence yourself and drawing your own conclusions. I'm quite sure that this isn't the case. Everything has been presented to you in black and white. If what they claim is false, then explain why.

The document is the product of one man, with a clear ideological agenda, commissioned by an organisation with a pre-defined social agenda, and which, without peer-review, remains just one biased opinion. I'm dismissing its validity on that basis.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

ave you even read the document you dismiss out of hand? Do you also reject pharma-funded clinical trials?

Pharma trials that aren't subject to scientific review? I'd certainly dismiss them out of hand.

Brown Bomber

oscarBravo wrote: »

Brown Bomber, would you mind answering this question for me, please:

I apologise, I didn't realise I had missed it.

All else being equal and assuming a greater number of would-be adopted parents than the number of orphans needing homes then potentially, yes, the normative family unit may provide a better environment for the orphan to thrive in every time.

oscarBravo wrote: »

oldrnwisr reviewed it, and explained what's wrong with it. You ignored that explanation.

I didn't ignore it. It was flawed itself and rather than being any "review" of the actual research appears to me to be to be a review of a random comic book writer's blog.
Same points made here http://amptoons.com/blog/2006/09/14/critique-of-nocks-claim-that-all-studies-of-same-sex-parenting-have-fatal-flaws/
and here:
http://amptoons.com/blog/2006/03/02/critique-of-no-basis-part-one-their-appalling-double-standards/
Maybe you missed post 655? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90002858&postcount=655

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I apologise, I didn't realise I had missed it.

All else being equal and assuming a greater number of would-be adopted parents than the number of orphans needing homes then potentially, yes, the normative family unit may provide a better environment for the orphan to thrive in every time.

Ah - making a little progress then. Because when I stated:

No. Your point (contrary to all the evidence you've been shown) is that, all things being equal, the gay parenting option, by definition, cannot be the best option. That's your discrimination in a nutshell.

You disputed it - most indignantly:

You have made a claim of discrimination against me based on what I know to be complete nonsense. The onus is on you to now support your claim or withdraw your scurrilous accusation.

And now, what do we find? An admission that this is actually your position.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Ah - making a little progress then. Because when I stated:

You disputed it - most indignantly:

And now, what do we find? An admission that this is actually your position.

This is getting really desperate now... Do you not understand what "may", "potentially" and "cannot" means?

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is getting really desperate now... Do you not understand what "may", "potentially" and "cannot" means?

Your answer to this question:

If a gay couple is evaluated for suitability to adopt a child, is there always, as an axiomatic principle, a better-suited hetero couple available to adopt that child instead?

is YES.

All else being equal and assuming a greater number of would-be adopted parents than the number of orphans needing homes then potentially, yes, the normative family unit may provide a better environment for the orphan to thrive in every time.

It's not me who's getting desperate. Again - Your point (contrary to all the evidence you've been shown) is that, all things being equal, the gay parenting option, by definition, cannot be the best option. That's your discrimination in a nutshell.

_Redzer_

Seriously dude, if it's not peer-reviewed, it isn't worth shít, to be honest.

I could write up any sort of report, it doesn't make it valid or comprehensive unless it's put towards the scrutiny of the scientific community to pick through it and deem it worthy. It's only a good thing as that leaves us with a valid and accurate source of information to build on.

If I'm researching or writing essays, I need peer-reviewed data and reports, I completely dismiss anything that isn't because it could be false or skewed information -that could ultimately render my own work false and useless.

The fact that the report you linked to won't allow their report to be peer-reviewed by other scientists speaks volumes. All self respecting scientists who practice good scientific procedure allow their findings to be reviewed by the scientific community so it's authenticity can be double and triple checked to ensure their work is deemed worthy enough for others to use.

I know myself I would want my findings to go through rigorous reviewing so I could be sure my work is credible and reputable, and ultimately of use to the scientific community.
The fact that these people refuse to do so says it all.

aloyisious

Sometimes it's better to accept that some commentators just don't get it... take this as an example:

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinknews.co.uk%2F2014%2F04%2F13%2Flinda-harvey-young-gay-people-should-stay-closeted-until-they-can-become-straight%2F&ei=eL1TU7jrMsqM7AaPq4H4AQ&usg=AFQjCNGnpvVUPTJBoD4YTKgXJ8vLHQLY3g&bvm=bv.65058239,d.ZGU

sillyoulfool

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you just answer the actual questions you quoted instead...?

Why?
Your questions are as biased, myopic, and agenda supporting as the flawed "research" they refer to.
You cannot and will not win an argument based in fact by abusing semantics.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The reality is that a bunch of people here rather than judge the claims objectively on it's merits instead rushed to google and searched for "Report X debunked" and all came back here with the same fallacious argument.

Yes, that's exactly what you've done.

You insisted on comprehensive studies, and when they were presented, you suddenly became too busy to review them. You then insisted on a single study, while at the same time trying to debunk the studies you didn't read with anecdote. You were presented a more pared down version of all the completed research, and what's your first reaction? To rush to Google to find something to debunk the research you haven't read. And the best you can find is a paper commissioned by a group opposed to the idea of gay people marrying, let alone raising children.

For someone who claims to have an open mind on this, you're going to incredible lengths to ignore the facts. And you claim to do all of this with the child's welfare as your primary concern, even though you oppose any change in the law that would improve the welfare of children adopted by gay couples.

I see little point in anyone continuing a discussion with you. You refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts your biases and prejudices, and at the end of the day, the point is moot. Gay people can already adopt. The only change required is to allow civil partners to adopt jointly.

And if that's something you're opposed to, then I really do question if your only concern is for the children's welfare, because the bar on joint adoption does nothing to make things better for children adopted by gay people.

Brown Bomber

alastair wrote: »

Your answer to this question:

is YES.


It's not me who's getting desperate. Again - Your point (contrary to all the evidence you've been shown) is that, all things being equal, the gay parenting option, by definition, cannot be the best option. That's your discrimination in a nutshell.

Can you really not understand the actual words you are quoting? Since when does "potentially yes" mean "yes"?

Brown Bomber

sillyoulfool wrote: »

Why?
Your questions are as biased, myopic, and agenda supporting as the flawed "research" they refer to.
You cannot and will not win an argument based in fact by abusing semantics.

I am not abusing semantics. I am asking for people who dismiss the research which seriously undermines the research of it's time into gay couples child rearing to actually address the claims made. All am I getting is excuses. Excuses don't cut it.

sillyoulfool

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you really not understand the actual words you are quoting? Since when does "potentially yes" mean "yes"?

Still depending on twisted semantics in the absence of a valid and coherent argument!

sillyoulfool

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not abusing semantics. I am asking for people who dismiss the research which seriously undermines the research of it's time into gay couples child rearing to actually address the claims made. All am I getting is excuses. Excuses don't cut it.

But we are not dismissing research, what you are depending on does not come close to meeting even the most basic accepted standards of social-scientific research, it is just agenda driven , biased, blog fodder.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am not abusing semantics. I am asking for people who dismiss the research which seriously undermines the research of it's time into gay couples child rearing to actually address the claims made. All am I getting is excuses. Excuses don't cut it.

You managed to dismiss peer reviewed respected papers from well known researchers and organisations, and you expect the rest of us to entertain non-peer reviewed wingnuttery from those with form providing fodder for the fringes? No, I think not.

Brown Bomber

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly what you've done.

You insisted on comprehensive studies, and when they were presented,

Let me clear about this. What I believe is required for the sake of the child is for a study, ideally publically funded, which is both comprehensive and long-term, with a control group, and free from the fundamental flaws detailed in the report I linked to, which so many of you are afraid to you even read.

NuMarvel wrote: »

suddenly became too busy to review them.

So you would prefer that I pretended to read them and copy/pasted from a cartoonists blog? I fully intend to read them, but I want to do so carefully and dilligently when time permits. Is this wrong?

NuMarvel wrote: »

You then insisted on a single study, while at the same time trying to debunk the studies you didn't read with anecdote.

Completely false.

If you were paying attention you would understand that I presented that single case to debunk the utterly naive claim that "no evidence exists" of any negative aspects of gay childcare.

NuMarvel wrote: »

You were presented a more pared down version of all the completed research, and what's your first reaction? To rush to Google to find something to debunk the research you haven't read. And the best you can find is a paper commissioned by a group opposed to the idea of gay people marrying, let alone raising children.

Like I have already said, this was in the interests of balance. Is it wrong to hear both sides of an argument?

As for the last part of your post we are not discussing the same issue. What you are referring to is along the lines of the gay partner of a biological parent and already raising a child albeit unofficially being given their due rights and parental status. I have no issue with this at all. This is a good thing.

Brown Bomber

sillyoulfool wrote: »

But we are not dismissing research, what you are depending on does not come close to meeting even the most basic accepted standards of social-scientific research, it is just agenda driven , biased, blog fodder.

YOU review it then. If you can handle the cognitive dissonance that is.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Let me clear about this. What I believe is required for the sake of the child is for a study, ideally publically funded, which is both comprehensive and long-term, with a control group, and free from the fundamental flaws detailed in the report I linked to, which so many of you are afraid to you even read.

.

....and when that is presented, you'll move the goal posts again, while presenting a non-publically funded interest group linked non peer viewed paper from some pair of lobbyists with doctorates.

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Seriously dude, if it's not peer-reviewed, it isn't worth shít, to be honest.

I could write up any sort of report, it doesn't make it valid or comprehensive unless it's put towards the scrutiny of the scientific community to pick through it and deem it worthy. It's only a good thing as that leaves us with a valid and accurate source of information to build on.

If I'm researching or writing essays, I need peer-reviewed data and reports, I completely dismiss anything that isn't because it could be false or skewed information -that could ultimately render my own work false and useless.

The fact that the report you linked to won't allow their report to be peer-reviewed by other scientists speaks volumes. All self respecting scientists who practice good scientific procedure allow their findings to be reviewed by the scientific community so it's authenticity can be double and triple checked to ensure their work is deemed worthy enough for others to use.

I know myself I would want my findings to go through rigorous reviewing so I could be sure my work is credible and reputable, and ultimately of use to the scientific community.
The fact that these people refuse to do so says it all.

Don't get me wrong, I do take your point but to claim it "says it all" is false. It doesn't. It has no baring at all on whether their claims are true or false. The solitary issue anyone has had with the actual claims has been debunked.

_Redzer_

BB, just own up to it and stop this pathetic attempt to hide your irrational and unfounded disapproval of same sex adoption behind some kind of 'reasonable' and 'sincere' facade, it's only a sham and a decoy, you don't like the idea of it and that's just it. It's as clear as day.

As a gay person I've seen this same argument countless times before from people who refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts their views -well, anything that jeopardises their seemingly 'rational' views that hide their irrational true feelings on the subject, because once they've nothing to hide behind, all that's on show is their irrational and baseless disdain for it -and that's all it always was anyway.

Just own up to it because it's tedious to watch this pretence. You don't approve of it because you don't like the idea of it, no matter if the bases for which you make your argument is incorrect, that's just how you feel about it, simple as.

_Redzer_

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I do take your point but to claim it "says it all" is false. It doesn't. It has no baring at all on whether their claims are true or false. The solitary issue anyone has had with the actual claims has been debunked.

Not to be taken as fact until scrutinised by the scientific community and at which point proven to be true. That's how science works.

Since they won't offer up their findings to peer-review they can never be taken or used in any serious way. No reputable scientist would use them, because as I already said, if it's not peer-reviewed, it ain't worth shít to us. This is how science works because we need to maintain a high, reputable and accurate standard.

sillyoulfool

Brown Bomber wrote: »

YOU review it then. If you can handle the cognitive dissonance that is.

I did here:

sillyoulfool wrote: »

But we are not dismissing research, what you are depending on does not come close to meeting even the most basic accepted standards of social-scientific research, it is just agenda driven , biased, blog fodder.

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Not to be taken as fact until scrutinised by the scientific community and at which point proven to be true. That's how science works.

Since they won't offer up their findings to peer-review they can never be taken or used in any serious way. No reputable scientist would use them, because as I already said, if it's not peer-reviewed, it ain't worth shít to us. This is how science works because we need to maintain a high, reputable and accurate standard.

Peer-review is not the flawless, bias-free, hallowed construct you make it out to be, You don't have to look any further that climategate to understand this. This is a whole different discussion though.

What is important here is are the criticisms and conclusions present in the study valid or not.

Brown Bomber

sillyoulfool wrote: »

I did here:

So you have actually read it then???

Are the criticisms valid in your opinion?

Brown Bomber

_Redzer_ wrote: »

BB, just own up to it and stop this pathetic attempt to hide your irrational and unfounded disapproval of same sex adoption behind some kind of 'reasonable' and 'sincere' facade, it's only a sham and a decoy, you don't like the idea of it and that's just it. It's as clear as day.

As a gay person I've seen this same argument countless times before from people who refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts their views -well, anything that jeopardises their seemingly 'rational' views that hide their irrational true feelings on the subject, because once they've nothing to hide behind, all that's on show is their irrational and baseless disdain for it -and that's all it always was anyway.

Just own up to it because it's tedious to watch this pretence. You don't approve of it because you don't like the idea of it, no matter if the bases for which you make your argument is incorrect, that's just how you feel about it, simple as.

... ah, the homophobia card. To reiterate: We have an obligation to provide our single most vulnerable citizens (orphans) with the best possible homes and families. We have an obligation to these children to not impatiently jump on any hipster bandwagons and grasp the nettle but to exercise caution before placing them in alternative family structures until such a time as all doubt has been removed that the normative family structure isn't uniquely capable of providing these children with the best possible homes.

_Redzer_

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Peer-review is not the flawless, bias-free, hallowed construct you make it out to be, You don't have to look any further that climategate to understand this. This is a whole different discussion though.

What is important here is are the criticisms and conclusions present in the study valid or not.

And yet you jump straight ahead to a non-reviewed report riddled with flaws such as bias as already pointed out and hold that as high, or even higher in standard?

I think I'm done with this debate. You're only going to believe what you want to believe in spite of a wall of reputable and scientifically sound reports that say otherwise.
You're dodging questions left, right and centre asked by other posters, and you've got a clear agenda going -that you don't like it and that's it. You've yet to prove otherwise to me.

It feels like I'm having a conversation with a conspiracist about scary GMOs or 'big pharma' being evil.

It's clear you're no scientist anyway, you wouldn't last a day if you tried.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I fully intend to read them, but I want to do so carefully and dilligently when time permits.

And in the meantime, you'll scour the Internet looking for anything that debunks the research you haven't read, and then spend your time defending it, even though you haven't a clue if it's accurate or not. Just as well you have an open mind, huh :pac:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As for the last part of your post we are not discussing the same issue. What you are referring to is along the lines of the gay partner of a biological parent and already raising a child albeit unofficially being given their due rights and parental status.

That's not what I'm referring to at all, and anyone who understands the adoption process would know that. Joint adoption is when an adopted child is placed in the custody of the applying couple, and not the sole custody of one person. It's not limited to step-family adoptions, which is what you're talking about.

So, to summarise. This whole charade of finding evidence you'll find acceptable is moot. Gay people can already adopt, and the law will soon change to allow civil partners to adopt jointly.

If you have a reason why the law shouldn't be changed, we're all ears. But it's up to YOU to prove that the status quo, i.e. that gay couples can't adopt jointly, but can adopt as single people, is more beneficial to children.