PDA

View Full Version : The witchhunt continues against those who don't mindlessly agree with homosexuals



Hubie
07-22-2012, 07:19 PM
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/07/13/sociologist-comes-under-fire-from-activists-for-gay-parenting-study/


When the journal Social Science Research published a study by University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus last month saying children raised by parents in same-sex relationships have more negative outcomes than those raised by married mothers and fathers, the news didn’t just make headlines nationwide — it made waves.

Now, the school is in the early stages of pulling together a board of inquiry to investigate allegations of academic misconduct — brought not by a fellow academic, but by a gay-activist blogger.

Scott Rosensweig, who writes for “The New Civil Rights Movement,” complained in a June 21 letter to UT-Austin President Bill Powers on June 21 that Regnerus’s study — the largest ever conducted to include children raised by homosexual parents — was “designed so as to be guaranteed to make gay people look bad, through means plainly fraudulent and defamatory.” He also complained that the $750,000 grant Regnerus won from the Witherspoon Institute and Bradley Foundation to conduct it was taken “from an anti-gay political organization.” He called for the school to release all of Regnerus’s research material, sources, and communications related to the study.

Several sociologists have come to Regnerus’s defense, saying it’s unprecedented for a highly respected, tenured professor to be investigated on such charges because a blogger didn’t like the study’s findings.

I think they're on their way to being handed a big, fat lawsuit by Regnerus.

Edit: *mindlessly, obviously. Me and my problem with titles.

FlaGator
07-22-2012, 09:16 PM
http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/07/13/sociologist-comes-under-fire-from-activists-for-gay-parenting-study/



I think they're on their way to being handed a big, fat lawsuit by Regnerus.

Edit: *mindlessly, obviously. Me and my problem with titles.

There is nothing that the gay lobby will not do to silence those who disagree with them. In this respect they are much like the Cult of Man Made Global Warming.

Elspeth
07-22-2012, 11:24 PM
Now, the school is in the early stages of pulling together a board of inquiry to investigate allegations of academic misconduct — brought not by a fellow academic, but by a gay-activist blogger.

Great, now bloggers can go after you for academic issues. This is what peer review is for. The study was published in an academic journal, so it was reviewed by peers in the field, fellow social scientists. Typically, the process is very painstaking, especially if what you have to say goes against the political zeitgeist. I imagine this researcher's methodology and statistics were very carefully checked.

What the little blogger shit should do is look at the problems that appear in these children and see how they can be explained. I'd have to read the study, but often, kids in homes where the parents are objects of discrimination in society will not fare as well: discrimination against the parents will affect the children, their sense of place in society, and their sense of loyalty to their parents.


ON EDIT:

More from the article:


Several sociologists have come to Regnerus’s defense, saying it’s unprecedented for a highly respected, tenured professor to be investigated on such charges because a blogger didn’t like the study’s findings.

"For some of these journals, the acceptance rate is about 5 percent,” said Dr. Byron Johnson, a professor of sociology at Baylor University and co-director for the Institute for Studies of Religion — a fact which reflects the quality of the science involved. “It’s not like he gave a speech and made a slur. Typically, when (academics) disagree with research, we do our own. Let’s do this in an academic way, not a witch hunt — led by the blogosphere and people who have no credentials.”



A reputable academic journal accepts very few of the papers that come its way. This guy is already tenured and respected in his field. This isn't "junk science" in other words.



Regnerus’s study included 2,988 people between the ages of 18 and 39 raised in a variety of settings. According to his findings, those with homosexual parents had poorer romantic relationships, lower income and more mental health issues than others.


This is A LOT of data. The issues are definitely worth looking at. At first glance, it looks like self esteem issues and social adjustment, but I'd defer to Noonwitch on this one.




That confounds the prevailing sense of homosexual parenting touted by the mainstream media. However, several social scientists have pointed out the serious limitations of those studies — including statistically insignificant samples, and participants recruited from ads in gay publications who self-report their children’s outcomes.

Those studies may have been accepted because “their findings are politically correct,” Johnson said. “And people say we’re supposed to throw out Regnerus’s study? You don’t throw everything out, but you do have to go back and look at everything. But to say the previous studies trump his, which is what they’re implying, is ridiculous.”


Super important. The previous studies on this issue of gay parents had small sample sizes and, in many cases, were self-report, the most inaccurate form of gathering data there is. Regnerus's study, on the other hand, was incredibly rigorous and is really our first indication of how same sex parenting is working now.

Elspeth
07-22-2012, 11:39 PM
Also, the National Review did a great piece on this study:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/302462/exposing-schlock-social-science-gay-parenting-part-1-ed-whelan


Also, here is the link to the actual study of Dr. Regnerus:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

NJCardFan
07-22-2012, 11:46 PM
2 words: Chick Fil-A

Elspeth
07-23-2012, 12:00 AM
For the blogger shit yelling "academic misconduct:"

Here is how Regnerus developed his methods and who else he invited to be in on the study. If you look carefully, there were many researchers from different areas and ideological bents involved in the approach and methodology, the key area of a study where ideological biases would come through if they were there. It looks like Regnerus was doing his very best to be impartial and develop meaningful measures. Notice, too, that Regnerus makes his disclaimers about funding as well.



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

2. Data collection, measures, and analytic approach

The NFSS data collection project is based at the University of Texas at Austin’s Population Research Center. A survey design team consisting of several leading family researchers in sociology, demography, and human development—from Penn State University, Brigham Young University, San Diego State University, the University of Virginia, and several from the University of Texas at Austin—met over 2 days in January 2011 to discuss the project’s sampling strategy and scope, and continued to offer advice as questions arose over the course of the data collection process. The team was designed to merge scholars across disciplines and ideological lines in a spirit of civility and reasoned inquiry. Several additional external consultants also gave close scrutiny to the survey instrument, and advised on how best to measure diverse topics. Both the study protocol and the questionnaire were approved by the University of Texas at Austin’s Institutional Review Board. The NFSS data is intended to be publicly accessible and will thus be made so with minimal requirements by mid-late 2012. The NFSS was supported in part by grants from the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation. While both of these are commonly known for their support of conservative causes—just as other private foundations are known for supporting more liberal causes—the funding sources played no role at all in the design or conduct of the study, the analyses, the interpretations of the data, or in the preparation of this manuscript.

Novaheart
07-23-2012, 11:13 AM
Studies which favor corporate "donors" are regularly called into question. To say that this is rare would be a lie. Every study of late which speaks well if the Gulf's recovery and health has been accused of being oil industry propaganda. Every study of environmental impact of mass water diversion in California is under attack by the corporate farmers.

It's rather disingenuous to maintain that objectivity is impossible (and therefore why even try) but to then say "Except for this guy."

Odysseus
07-23-2012, 11:25 AM
There is nothing that the gay lobby will not do to silence those who disagree with them. In this respect they are much like the Cult of Man Made Global Warming.

They are exactly like every other leftist group. The left doesn't want any debate on any of their agenda items, because at the very least, it would impede implementation, and in the best case, it would expose the complete bankruptcy of their ideas. Debate is a democratic process, and they are totalitarians.

MountainMan
07-23-2012, 01:23 PM
Studies which favor corporate "donors" are regularly called into question. To say that this is rare would be a lie. Every study of late which speaks well if the Gulf's recovery and health has been accused of being oil industry propaganda. Every study of environmental impact of mass water diversion in California is under attack by the corporate farmers.

It's rather disingenuous to maintain that objectivity is impossible (and therefore why even try) but to then say "Except for this guy."

Right........... And we should so blindly believe "government funded studies" because they never have an agenda, correct? :rolleyes:

How about instead of criticizing who funded the study, why not check their methodology? That would give you an immediate answer as to whether or not the study has credibility.

Elspeth
07-23-2012, 08:53 PM
Studies which favor corporate "donors" are regularly called into question. To say that this is rare would be a lie. Every study of late which speaks well if the Gulf's recovery and health has been accused of being oil industry propaganda. Every study of environmental impact of mass water diversion in California is under attack by the corporate farmers.

It's rather disingenuous to maintain that objectivity is impossible (and therefore why even try) but to then say "Except for this guy."

Take a look at how the researcher does his best to avoid such bias. I've posted it above.

Essentially, his results do not intimate anything about causality. He admits this clearly in the article. All he is showing is a cross-section of existing adult children of gays and lesbians.

He also makes it clear the following:

1. The adult children in the sample were in age ranges from 18-35, meaning that some of these children were being raised with a gay parent as early as the late 70s.

2. The adult children in the sample came almost entirely from heterosexual marriages and were products of divorce. The parent's same sex relationship occurred after the initial divorce. There is no reason given for these divorces, though the researcher does acknowledge that some of these marriages may have involved sexual abuse, since more of these children (statistically significant figure) experienced sexual abuse of some kind, typically before living with the gay parent and his/her lover.

3. The designation of gay and lesbian parent is based on whether this parent had at least one same sex lover with whom the parent (and child) lived for some length of time. The time could be a short or long term situation. No attempt is made to see if the parent really was entirely gay, i.e., no attempt was made to parse out bisexuality. No attempt is made to account for stable, long term gay relationships vs. short term, unstable relationships. No attempt is made to find out whether or not the child's parent continued to be involved with a same sex partner or changed back to heterosexual relationships. (For example, if a woman goes through a traumatic hetero marriage with abuse and decides to be with a woman, she might eventually (if straight or bi) return to a male partner.) This, to me, is the biggest problem with the study. We don't know if these parents ever were really gay or continue to identify as such. All we know is that the child's parent had, at one point, a same sex partner with which the parent and child lived.

4. The data somewhat overrepresents black and hispanic parents with same sex partners living in "red" areas of the country. This argues that discrimination, both racial and anti-gay, might be playing a part in the self esteem of the children. Certainly the black community is less tolerant of gay sexual orientation than the white community, and the hispanic community is heavily influenced by Catholicism.


My advice is to read the actual study and tear it apart if you like. The researcher was NOT dishonest and he put his entire methodology on the table. The study does give a truthful account of how things really are at the current time. Previous studies overrrepresented educated white women (lesbians) in tolerant urban areas, and it is quite possible that their children do have outcomes just as good as those with married (non-divorced) straight couples and their biological children. However, most gay parenting situations are simply not like that. That's what the study shows. The gay community should be poring over this data looking for difficulties that need to be addressed and support that needs to be provided.

Needless to say, I actually read the study last night. It is straightforward and nothing is hidden. On the other hand, the results will be misused. Just because something is statistically present NOW does not mean it will remain that way. Americans are too dumb, sometimes, to understand how studies work.

Novaheart
07-23-2012, 09:17 PM
My advice is to read the actual study and tear it apart if you like. .

I almost always find the methodology lacking in any of this sort of drivel. I like harder fact that "negative outcome". My comment was in regard to the claim that this study is being singled out for criticism. That's simply not true.

The idea of a random sample of adult children of gay people is rather preposterous.

Elspeth
07-23-2012, 09:22 PM
I almost always find the methodology lacking in any of this sort of drivel. I like harder fact that "negative outcome". My comment was in regard to the claim that this study is being singled out for criticism. That's simply not true.

The idea of a random sample of adult children of gay people is rather preposterous.

Read the study. Then we can have a real discussion about it.

Novaheart
07-25-2012, 10:32 AM
Read the study. Then we can have a real discussion about it.

I reject the sampling technique. I don't have to read a study based on an unreliable sample if I have determined that the sample is unacceptable.

Moreover, the bottom line is irrelevant. Let's say that gay parents as a group come up short of straight parents as a group. So what? I'll bet that Black parents come up way short on that one, given the demographics of the juvenile human foster care programs. Within the "White parents" you could single out the PWT as obviously unfit to parent relative to middle class government workers.

There is your sample, BTW; survey the kids in foster care to find out what percentage of them have gay parents. If that doesn't satisfy you, then survey the kids in jail.

My sample is what I see around me in a small town in Florida. I see all kinds of gay parents with all kinds of kids. Most of the gay parents I have encountered are those with their children at Quaker school, Admiral Farragut Academy, Catholic or Episcopal school, and even Northside Christian (denomination unknown) or one of the public schools that parents who care stand in line for. My tenants are two women one of which has a son in the Marines and the other has a son who rides a scooter to his job at a convenience store. No saints to be found as a group, just all over the place like everyone else. The only special thing I have noted about gay parents is that they by and large will jump through physical or financial hoops to keep their kids out of mainstream public school programs where they are subjected to the potential for unbridled bigotry and stupidity related to them having gay parents.

Elspeth
07-27-2012, 02:37 AM
Well, it looks like the journal is apologizing for the study:

Controversial Gay-Parenting Study Is Severely Flawed, Journal’s Audit Finds
July 26, 2012, 10:57 pm

By Tom Bartlett

http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/controversial-gay-parenting-study-is-severely-flawed-journals-audit-finds/30255


The peer-review process failed to identify significant, disqualifying problems with a controversial and widely publicized study that seemed to raise doubts about the parenting abilities of gay couples, according to an internal audit scheduled to appear in the November issue of the journal, Social Science Research, that published the study.

The highly critical audit, a draft of which was provided to The Chronicle by the journal’s editor, also cites conflicts of interest among the reviewers, and states that “scholars who should have known better failed to recuse themselves from the review process.”

Since it was published last month, the study, titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?,” has been the subject of numerous news articles and blog posts. It has been used by opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case, and it’s been blasted by gay-rights activists as flawed and biased.

The study’s author, Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin, even made the cover of The Weekly Standard. In the illustration, he is strapped to a Catherine wheel that’s being tended by masked torturers.

Like Regnerus, the editor of Social Science Research, James D. Wright, has been at the receiving end of an outpouring of anger over the paper. At the suggestion of another scholar, Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Central Florida, assigned a member of the journal’s editorial board—Darren E. Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale—to examine how the paper was handled.

Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise: “It’s bullshit,” he said.

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper’s definition of “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers”—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a “lesbian mother” in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have “disqualified it immediately” from being considered for publication.


In his audit, he writes that the peer-review system failed because of “both ideology and inattention” on the part of the reviewers (three of the six reviewers, according to Sherkat, are on record as opposing same-sex marriage). What’s more, he writes that the reviewers were “not without some connection to Regnerus,” and suggests that those ties influenced their reviews.

He declined to be more specific in an interview, saying that he was obligated to protect their identities. “Obviously,” he concluded, “the reviewers did not do a good job.”

At the same time, he sympathizes with the task of the overburdened reviewer inclined to skim. Because of how the paper was written, Sherkat said, it would have been easy to miss Regnerus’s explanation of who qualified as “lesbian mothers” and “gay fathers.” If a reviewer were to skip ahead to the statistics in the table, it would be understandable, he said, to assume that the children described there were, in fact, raised by a gay or lesbian couple for a significant portion of their childhoods.

In reality, only two respondents lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods, and most did not live with lesbian or gay parents for long periods, if at all.

The information about how parents are labeled is in the paper. Regnerus writes that he chose those labels for “the sake of brevity and to avoid entanglement in interminable debates about fixed or fluid orientations.” Sherkat, however, called the presentation of the data “extremely misleading.” Writes Sherkat: “Reviewers uniformly downplayed or ignored the fact that the study did not examine children of identifiably gay and lesbian parents, and none of the reviewers noticed that the marketing-research data were inappropriate for a top-tier social-scientific journal.”...

More at the link.

txradioguy
07-27-2012, 03:47 AM
I almost always find the methodology lacking in any of this sort of drivel. I like harder fact that "negative outcome". My comment was in regard to the claim that this study is being singled out for criticism. That's simply not true.

The idea of a random sample of adult children of gay people is rather preposterous.

The ONLY reason you find it preposterous is because it goes against YOUR agenda and belief that "gay is normal".

Had this study gone the other way...with the same methods of data collection and same sampling YOU would have been the one posting the thread on it and singing it's praises.

Elspeth
07-27-2012, 07:20 PM
The ONLY reason you find it preposterous is because it goes against YOUR agenda and belief that "gay is normal".

Had this study gone the other way...with the same methods of data collection and same sampling YOU would have been the one posting the thread on it and singing it's praises.

The politicization of academic research is a huge problem.