Various studies have come out recently underscoring how the traditional family unit (a man and a woman, as typically defined as traditional in Western Civilization) offers multiple benefits to society when compared to single-parent families and same-gender families. This is particularly poignant in light of the vitriolic attacks on Chick-fil-A founder Dan Cathy for his comments in support of traditional family values.
A recent New York Times article offers an exposé on the benefits of the traditional marriage structure with a new twist, it emphasizes the economic benefits of the traditional family structure. Ben Johnson of Life Site news chimed in on the subject matter:
"The definition of marriage has long been considered a religious or legal argument. However, a growing number of economists, journalists, and social researchers are concluding that getting and staying married is a key to economic prosperity and domestic tranquility."
Coming from a liberal source such as the New York Times, the article and research praising the long-term benefits of traditional marriage and families is a bit noteworthy.
"Citing a host of secular, liberal professors, the article came to the same conclusion as longtime apologists for traditional marriage: it's not only good for the soul but also for one's bank account." Mindy Scott, a Child Trends demographer, stated, "Having men in the house for a short time with ambiguous parenting roles can be really disruptive for children.”
The original New York Times article is entitled "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do,'" which spanned nearly 3,900 words. The article emphasizes that traditional marriage structures have allowed for more financial stability in both families and for society in general.
"Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality."
Though there were documented monetary benefits associated with the traditional family in society, Johnson offered that the question runs much deeper than dollars and cents:
"The most important impact of differing marriage trends is not economic but social and spiritual, and it is visited not on the parents but upon the children."
Recently, there has been a vitriolic reaction to comments by the founder of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, outlined in an interview with the Baptist press. But, apparently, Cathy's support of traditional family values has been in line with the research. The interview with BP highlights a few key quotes by Dan Cathy: "Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position." Cathy emphasized. "We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that." Cathy credits the financial success of his fast food chain to one thing. Cathy and his team have striven to follow the many guiding principles outlined in scripture. And one of those principles is the understanding that the traditional family is a core feature of a strong and healthy society.
 | |
| Mark Regnerus |
1. Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
2. Have lower educational attainment
3. Report less safety and security in their family of origin
4. Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
5. Are more likely to suffer from depression
6. Have been arrested more often
7. If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
There is no doubt that these mentioned studies will not be the end of the debate on the effects of family structures. And if there are any noteworthy peer-reviwed studies and scientific articles that favor non-traditional families, anyone is welcome to post the results here in the comments for comparison.
Note: Norman Rockwell Image is public domain. Baby image is by consent from artist Traqair.
Related
10 Myths and facts about gay rights and marriage
US Army defines Christian family ministry as 'domestic hate group'
Research Punctures Modern Fathers Myth
Tags: Benefits of traditional family values, Dan Cathy quotes, Chick-fil-A quotes and principles, studies support health of traditional families, study shows traditional families are more beneficial, studies outline long-term effects of family upbringing, the wisdom and blessings of following biblical principles and values, Mark Regnerus study: same sex vs. traditional families, traditional parent advantage, peer reviewed studies on cohabitation, GLBT relationships, GLBT marriage study, study children of GLBT marriage
Rick...I am starting to think that it is impossible to be that stupid and you are just a petty liar, pushing your propaganda at any price. Not only you never admitted being wrong about Salman, but now you seem to be ready to spout additional nonsense on marriage.
ReplyDelete1) OF COURSE SINGLE PARENTS ARE LESS SUCCESSFUL! Their income is twice lower than in normal famillies. The number of advantages is much higher if you are raising your children together with someone. And of course parents are better workers than single people since they have the responsibility to bring up their children.
2) The SINGLE and "compelling" study that claims children from homosexual parents are at a disadvantage is a load of crap to say the least. Not only it goes against the other studies, but several scientists have found so many holes in that paper that it turned into swiss cheese.
a) The study is most likely just a piece of anti-gay propaganda. Its publication was rushed for a conservative petition from its politically motivated founders. It was so rushed that the publishers could not even get their story straight.
"According to these documents, the paper was submitted for publication 20 days before the end of the data collection, and 23 days before the data were delivered to the University of Texas! That’s fast."
http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/regnerus-study-timeline/
b) The sample of homosexual parents is extremely low. 3 000 respondents and less than 250 from gay couples. Not enough of a sample for a compelling study
c) There is no exact definition of "gay parents" in that study
"He doesn't have an actual category of gay parents in the project that you can isolate and say the most important thing in this kid's childhood is that they were raised by gay parents," Stacey told LiveScience. "These are kids whose parents, maybe they divorced, maybe they separated, maybe they had a scandalous affair, we just don't know."
"All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.
http://www.livescience.com/20882-sex-parenting-study-controversy.html
Anonymous,
Delete1. If you wish to discuss the Salman case, it would probably be better to do so in the comments of that post. You have a comment you may reply to there whenever you are ready:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-rutherford-institute-challenges.html?
2. OF COURSE SINGLE PARENTS ARE LESS SUCCESSFUL!
- If that is so, then it's a shame that humanistic influences in society tend to glorify relationships focused on pleasure without commitment and every single possible alternative to a traditional family.
Many humanists argue that society needs to be liberated from the constraints of religion - and the traditional family also happens to be one of those perceived restraints.
A swinger's lifestyle, adulterous marriages, wife swapping, triads, bi-sexual and homosexual marriages, etc., are all seen as liberating alternatives.
3. several scientists have found so many holes in that paper that it turned into swiss cheese.
- Post actual valid points.
a) The study is most likely just a piece of anti-gay propaganda.
- Prove it.
b) The sample of homosexual parents is extremely low. 3 000 respondents and less than 250 from gay couples.
- That point actually shows that the sample used in the study is a true reflection of society. No more than 10% of society is actually gay.
c) There is no exact definition of "gay parents" in that study.
- Because there is no elaborate definition, then you are proposing the people in the study were not gay? Ridiculous excuse.Most people understand what the word homosexual means without an elaborate definition.
>"He doesn't have an actual category of gay parents in the project that you can isolate and say the most important thing in this kid's childhood is that they were raised by gay parents,"
- So what? Since when does one aspect have to be the most important aspect in order to be considered a valid consideration. Another ridiculous point.
Can you come up with any valid criticisms of the peer-reviewed article?
- Because there is no elaborate definition, then you are proposing the people in the study were not gay? Ridiculous excuse.Most people understand what the word homosexual means without an elaborate definition.
DeleteBecause there was no exact definition, it means that it's easy for errors to slip in the sides. "Most people understand..." is not a scientific level of reasoning -- what "most people" have understood has proven to be wrong time and time again. If you don't define your terms, your conclusions rest on sand.
Can you come up with any valid criticisms of the peer-reviewed article?
I refer you here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html
It's a non-technical critique, but hits several of the major points.
(As a side note, I find it amusing that you consider "it's vague and subjective" a devastating attack against a law, but perfectly acceptable when it comes to science.)
>Can you come up with any valid criticisms of the peer-reviewed article? ...I refer you here: (The New Yorker article by Amy Davidson)
Delete- It seems that both you and AnonyRus are fond of the New Yorker critique of Mark Regnerus' report. What I find ironic is that Amy Davidson, a senior editor at The New Yorker, is doing exactly what she criticizes Regnerus for doing, that is, drawing false conclusions from inaccurate labeling, only in her case it would seem to be blatantly disingenuous because she offers herself as one who is doing the correcting of the same fault she is guilty of.
Let's begin with the title:
A Faulty “Gay Parenting” Study
Nowhere does Regnerus describe his study as a "Gay Parenting" study. This is misleading.
The actual title of the report is:
"How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study"
The parameters of the study are clearly outlined in the report:
Abstract
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
The scope of the study is outlined:
2.3. What does a representative sample of gay and lesbian parents (of young adults) look like?
The weighted screener data—a nationally-representative sample—reveal that 1.7% of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 39 report that their father or mother has had a same-sex relationship, a figure comparable to other estimates of children in gay and lesbian households (e.g., [Stacey and Biblarz, 2001a] and [Stacey and Biblarz, 2001b]
As you continue to read the actual report, you read why Regnerus found it difficult to locate monogamous and continuous same-sex parents.
Continued
Part 2
DeleteIn Amy Davidson's critique of Mark Regnerus' report she states the report offers an "absurd response" because parents who have had a same sex romance would be defined as a separate group from traditional male-female parents who have not had such a relationship:
"...he, unfortunately, has an absurd response. Because of how the study is set up, any stress to a child from living with a married man and woman, one of whom had ever had a same-sex affair of any kind, would be ascribed to having a gay or lesbian parent, and statistically erased from the analysis of “mom and pop” families."
Davidson states,
"...what does that yes mean? [homosexual romance] Sex once in a bar? An infatuation from a distance?"
When you understand that 1) these questions are being asked of children who have witnessed their parent's lives, it would hardly seem accurate to say that a child would pick up on a parent's "infatuation from a distance" as a homosexual romance.
And, 2), if one simply reads the report with a little objectivity, one will see that, in most cases for women, the instance was clearly defined as case of living together and not as a one-night fling or "infatuation from a distance"
"Among those who said their mother had a same-sex relationship, 91% reported living with their mother while she was in the romantic relationship, and 57% said they had lived with their mother and her partner for at least 4 months at some point prior to age 18. A smaller share (23%) said they had spent at least 3 years living in the same household with a romantic partner of their mother’s."
For males, the percentages were less, but, nonetheless, "42% reported living with him [homosexual father] while he was in a same-sex romantic relationship." Again, this could not have been some private, mental attraction, but, rather, something that was distinctly noticeable by the children.
"Among those who said their father had a same-sex relationship, however, 42% reported living with him while he was in a same-sex romantic relationship, and 23% reported living with him and his partner for at least 4 months (but less than 2% said they had spent at least 3 years together in the same household), a trend similarly noted in Tasker’s (2005) review article on gay and lesbian parenting."
Continued.
Do explain how he came to the conclusion that the children of gay parents are less successful if he could find ONLY TWO lesbian famillies, whose children ended up without any problems.
DeleteP.S. All the other respondents were from MIXED ORIENTATION MARRIAGES. Hence, the only conclusion there is..Mixed orientation marriages are bad and gays should be allowed to marry to avoid social and psychological burdens
DeleteAmy Davidson criticizes Regnerus for not offering multiple examples of stable, same-sex couples who have children, however, both the report and Regnerus' personal commentary on the report clearly outline why young-adult children from these types of families simply are not readily available:
Delete1)Because the report used young adult children of various family types, the report outlined how this effected the data gathering:
"Today’s children of gay men and lesbian women are more apt to be “planned” (that is, by using adoption, IVF, or surrogacy) than as little as 15–20 years ago, when such children were more typically the products of heterosexual unions."
Regnerus offered his personal opinion of the report: "People might say that's irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study," he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57451777-10391704/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/
> ...he could find ONLY TWO lesbian famillies, whose children ended up without any problems.
Delete- Firstly, that statement is based on unreliable hearsay. Apparently, you have seen the post at "Box Turtle Bulletin" with the following quote:
"In our back and forth e-mails he admitted that he could not find any true lesbains and no true gay father sat all. ...Well he only found 2 true lesbains and actually their children turned out GREAT :) Ha!"
In his own quote the author discredits his reliability by making a self-contradiction.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin[DOT]com/2012/06/11/45557#comment-125929
>Hence, the only conclusion there is..Mixed orientation marriages are bad and gays should be allowed to marry to avoid social and psychological burdens.
- Secondly, if the email exchange is unreliable, then there is even less of a basis for making the types of conclusions you are making.
R:Firstly, that statement is based on unreliable hearsay. Apparently, you have seen the post at "Box Turtle Bulletin" with the following quote
DeleteThat comment corrolates with Regnerus s statement as well and I see no self-contradictions.
In the CBS link Regnurus confirm that he could find only TWO children who lived throughout 18 years with both same-sex parents. The sample is obviously too small to make any sort of conclusion WHATSOEVER.
He claims that it is impossible to conduct such a study for now, therefore it impossible to claim that gay people are bad parents at the present.
Since Regnurus admitted that all the other respondents are from MIXED ORIENTATION marriages, my conclusion still stands.
Here you go, Regnurus s statement that his study cannot make any kind of judgement on gay parents
Deletehttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/2012/06/q-a-with-mark-regnerus-about-the-background-of-his-new-study/
Q: So are gay parents worse than traditional parents?
A: The study is not about parenting per se. There are no doubt excellent gay parents and terrible straight parents. The study is, among other things, about outcome differences between young adults raised in households in which a parent had a same-sex relationship and those raised by their own parents in intact families. It’s not about sexual orientation, at least not overtly. There are many significant differences, but the study does not ascribe any causes for the differences. This can only be assessed with additional research. What is evident in the data, however, is above-average instability among households in which mom or dad had a same-sex relationship. For example, among the former only two respondents total said they lived with their mother and her partner nonstop from birth to age 18. Two more said they did so for 15 years, and two more for 13 years. To be sure, these 10 fared better on more outcomes than did their less-stable peers. They’re just uncommon, and too small a group to detect statistically-significant differences, for sure. Future studies would ideally include more children from “planned” gay or lesbian families, but their relative scarcity in the NFSS data suggests that their appearance in even much larger probability samples may remain infrequent for the foreseeable future.
To quote once again a sociologist...
Delete"All he found is that family instability is bad for children and that's hardly groundbreaking or new," Gates, who was not involved in the research, told LiveScience.
http://www.livescience.com/20882-sex-parenting-study-controversy.html
>That comment correlates with Regnerus' statement
Delete- Well, actually, as far as I saw, only the first part of the statement does correlate. Two points.
1. Can you show me where Regnerus stated that the children of 2 stable-monogamous lesbians in the study "turned out great"?
Continued
Second point
Delete2. Even if he did say that, how would it have been possible for Regnerus to have gone through all the studies and isolated all the statistical data for 2 lesbian couples (isolated from the main groups) according to the many categories listed in the actual report just so he could accurately make such a statement in the course of a brief email exchange?
Table 1. Weighted summary statistics of measures, NFSS.
NFSS variables Range Mean SD N
Currently married 0, 1 0.41 0.49 2988
Currently cohabiting 0, 1 0.15 0.36 2988
Family received welfare growing up 0, 1 0.34 0.47 2669
Currently on public assistance 0, 1 0.21 0.41 2952
Currently employed full-time 0,1 0.45 0.50 2988
Currently unemployed 0, 1 0.12 0.32 2988
Voted in last presidential election 0, 1 0.55 0.50 2960
Bullied while growing up 0, 1 0.36 0.48 2961
Ever suicidal during past year 0, 1 0.07 0.25 2953
Recently or currently in therapy 0, 1 0.11 0.32 2934
Identifies as entirely heterosexual 0, 1 0.85 0.36 2946
Is in a same-sex romantic relationship 0, 1 0.06 0.23 1056
Had affair while married/cohabiting 0, 1 0.19 0.39 1869
Has ever had an STI 0, 1 0.11 0.32 2911
Ever touched sexually by parent/adult 0, 1 0.07 0.26 2877
Ever forced to have sex against will 0, 1 0.13 0.33 2874
Educational attainment 1–5 2.86 1.11 2988
Family-of-origin safety/security 1–5 3.81 0.97 2917
Family-of-origin negative impact 1–5 2.58 0.98 2919
Closeness to biological mother 1–5 4.05 0.87 2249
Closeness to biological father 1–5 3.74 0.98 1346
Self-reported physical health 1–5 3.57 0.94 2964
Self-reported overall happiness 1–5 4.00 1.05 2957
CES-D depression index 1–4 1.89 0.62 2815
Attachment scale (depend) 1–5 2.97 0.84 2848
Attachment scale (anxiety) 1–5 2.51 0.77 2830
Impulsivity scale 1–4 1.88 0.59 2861
Level of household income 1–13 7.42 3.17 2635
Current relationship quality index 1–5 3.98 0.98 2218
Current relationship is in trouble 1–4 2.19 0.96 2274
Frequency of marijuana use 1–6 1.50 1.23 2918
Frequency of alcohol use 1–6 2.61 1.36 2922
Frequency of drinking to get drunk 1–6 1.70 1.09 2922
Frequency of smoking 1–6 2.03 1.85 2922
Frequency of watching TV 1–6 3.15 1.60 2919
Frequency of having been arrested 1–4 1.29 0.63 2951
Frequency pled guilty to non-minor offense 1–4 1.16 0.46 2947
N of female sex partners (among women) 0–11 0.40 1.10 1975
N of female sex partners (among men) 0–11 3.16 2.68 937
N of male sex partners (among women) 0–11 3.50 2.52 1951
N of male sex partners (among men) 0–11 0.40 1.60 944
Age 18–39 28.21 6.37 2988
Female 0, 1 0.51 0.50 2988
White 0, 1 0.57 0.49 2988
Gay-friendliness of state of residence 1–5 2.58 1.78 2988
Family-of-origin structure groups
Intact biological family (IBF) 0, 1 0.40 0.49 2988
Mother had same-sex relationship (LM) 0, 1 0.01 0.10 2988
Father had same-sex relationship (GF) 0, 1 0.01 0.75 2988
Adopted age 0–2 0, 1 0.01 0.75 2988
Divorced later/joint custody 0, 1 0.06 0.23 2988
Stepfamily 0, 1 0.17 0.38 2988
Single parent 0, 1 0.19 0.40 2988
All others 0, 1 0.15 0.36 2988
Mother’s education
Less than high school 0, 1 0.15 0.35 2988
Received high school diploma 0, 1 0.28 0.45 2988
Some college/associate’s degree 0, 1 0.26 0.44 2988
Bachelor’s degrees 0, 1 0.15 0.36 2988
More than bachelor’s 0, 1 0.08 0.28 2988
Do not know/missing 0, 1 0.08 0.28 2988
Family-of-origin income
$0–20,000 0, 1 0.13 0.34 2988
$20,001–40,000 0, 1 0.19 0.39 2988
$40,001–75,000 0, 1 0.25 0.43 2988
$75,001–100,000 0, 1 0.14 0.34 2988
$100,001–150,000 0, 1 0.05 0.22 2988
$150,001–200,000 0, 1 0.01 0.11 2988
Above $200,000 0, 1 0.01 0.10 2988
Do not know/missing 0, 1 0.22 0.42 2988
Answer: Not possible.
"Answer: Not possible."
DeleteIndeed, it is not possible to draw conclusions other than "stable families produce better outcomes".
Which, as suggested before, strongly encourages you to support same-sex marriage, as producing a greater chance of stability for same-sex families, and therefore for their children; if, at least, that's what you care about.
I suspect that what you care about is finding scientific "evidence" to support your narrow-minded views, even when the most charitable interpretation of that evidence does no such thing.
R:Well, actually, as far as I saw, only the first part of the statement does correlate.
DeleteSigh... Great, Rick. We have already established that the study cannot draw any negative conclusion about gay parenting even if its conclusions are dishonestly misleading...Though, you still push your nonsense and nitpick about small details.
R:Can you show me where Regnerus stated that the children of 2 stable-monogamous lesbians in the study "turned out great"?
"To be sure, these 10 fared better on more outcomes than did their less-stable peers." They grew as normal children like the ones in other stable famillies. However, I repeat, it is a minor point that does not matter
You do realize that the New York Times article is heavily engaged in referring to a change in pattern in marriage with regards to economic class, don't you?
ReplyDelete“It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.
Similarly, your peer-reviewed study has also already been challenged as significantly flawed:
Instead, Regnerus categorized all people who said their parents were once in a same-sex relationship in the same group, even if those people had also experienced major childhood upheavals.
In other words, he sampled one side of "successful" parents, and another that drew in large numbers of signs of potential problems -- parents coming out in the middle of marriage, adulterous marriages, etc.
Funny - when you do that, it skews your results. If he wanted to do a proper comparison, he would either have chosen "Children of stable gay relationships" to compare to "Children of stable heterosexual relationships" or "All children whose parents have had same-sex interaction" and "All children whose parents have had opposite-sex interaction."
And, last but not least, you do realize that all hypothesizing on this issue has a major weakness? When there is a pre-existing social stigma/social bias against a relationship or family structure, correcting for that to get at the "truth" underneath it is very, very difficult -- as Regnerus' flawed study shows.
(And before you ask how I can dismiss it so readily -- when the methodology is that bad, the results are irrelevant; if he'd proven that they were equally good, it still would have been irrelevant, because the methodology was bad.
I will be doing more research later for peer-reviewed papers -- at the moment I do not have time for it.
>Regnerus categorized all people who said their parents were once in a same-sex relationship in the same group, even if those people had also experienced major childhood upheavals.
Delete- So, if a person had a bad childhood, then they supposedly should not have been used as a case? Ridiculous. It may not occur to the critic that many people became homosexuals precisely because there were "major childhood upheavals." This has been the case with homosexual friends of mine who have shared some details of childhood.
>If he wanted to do a proper comparison, he would either have chosen "Children of stable gay relationships" to compare to "Children of stable heterosexual relationships"
- Wrong, that approach would be manipulative. For accurate results you take random samples from both straight and gay groups as a reflection of their percentages in society. You are presupposing that there is an equal percentage of stable children from both groups. That is not an objective approach for examining society. I understand why critics would love to stack the report in their favor, but that is why peer-reviewed process exists, to weed out non-objective research papers.
>When there is a pre-existing social stigma/social bias against a relationship or family structure, correcting for that to get at the "truth" underneath it is very, very difficult -- as Regnerus' flawed study shows.
- No the study does not show that at all. Again, you are not being objective. I realize that for you to consider that the social stigma/social bias against homosexuality may actually be in keeping with a correct appraisal of homosexuality as a a harmful effect on people and society, is next to zero. It does not even register as an objective possibility for you and thus you automatically assume the stigma is baseless.
So, if a person had a bad childhood, then they supposedly should not have been used as a case?
DeleteWe appear to be heading rapidly into "willful ignorance" territory here.
This has been the case with homosexual friends of mine who have shared some details of childhood.
Anecdotes don't count as valid data. Are you willing to accept the words of those who say "No, I've always been gay, it had nothing to do with how I was raised."?
If not, you're displaying your own biases most clearly.
. For accurate results you take random samples from both straight and gay groups as a reflection of their percentages in society.
This approach only works if you have carefully controlled the other factors -- which the Regnerus study did *not* do.
You are presupposing that there is an equal percentage of stable children from both groups.
One group, as I noted, and you deleted, consisted of "children of stable heterosexual relationships" -- a.k.a. children of non-stable ones were specifically *excluded*. While the other group was "children of relationships in which there was any identification of one parent or another as gay" -- which did *not* specifically exclude children of non-stable relationships.
Hence, a skewed data set, skewed to produce precisely the expected result.
The way to reduce bias in investigations is to look for cases as similar as possible, and observe if there are any regular differences. Even taking "random children of straight couples" and "random children of same-sex couples" would produce a more accurate result than Regnerus' model, which biased the data from the beginning.
- No the study does not show that at all.
The failures in Regnerus' study show it.
Again, you are not being objective.
Considering you're the one who doesn't appear to understand how social science research works, I do not take this claim particularly to heart.
It does not even register as an objective possibility for you and thus you automatically assume the stigma is baseless.
Your assumptions are showing.
Note that my claim regarding the difficulty of doing objective research aroudn an issue of bias is true whether or not the bias has any valid reason -- it's a simple matter of experimental construction, in that trying to eliminate all effects of that bias -- as opposed to the subject of that bias -- is very hard.
I suspect that you'd find, for example, in many Islamic countries Christians, where they are allowed to function at all, do so at a considerably lower economic level. From this one could deduce that Christianity was a hindrance to getting ahead in the world, and was, clearly, actively harmful to one's chances of success. Such a conclusion would only be true if you combined it with the context -- that to be Christian was to be discriminated against, and that made getting ahead in the world more difficult.
That you can see one person's attempting to change a law as a sign of massive anti-Christian bias, but not see how years of hatred, opposition, and stigmatizing could have an effect upon an entire population, does not speak well to your own objectivity.
R:If that is so, then it's a shame that humanistic influences in society tend to glorify relationships focused on pleasure without commitment and every single possible alternative to a traditional family.
ReplyDeleteStraw man. That is not what humanism is about.
R:a) The study is most likely just a piece of anti-gay propaganda.
- Prove it
Do I need to copy-paste again? Two anti-gay consevative foundations were the sponsors and the study was rushed for a petition. The people could not even get their story straight.
R:That point actually shows that the sample used in the study is a true reflection of society.
The point of the study is not about a true propotional reflection of the society. It is about finding the influence of gay parents on their children. You would need two equal groups to find that.
R:Most people understand what the word homosexual means without an elaborate definition.
In a scientific study all the definitions must have a clear definition. Imnotandrei already explained this to you. And here is a quote from imnotandrei s link why it is important to make your definitions clear.
It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians.
It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians.
It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians
"It also turned out that most of the adults that the study considered products of gay or lesbian parents were not, for the most part, raised by gays or lesbians."
"Only 42% of respondents reported living with a "Gay Farther" and his partner for at least four months - and less than 2% (two or three people) reported doing so for at least three years"
R:Since when does one aspect have to be the most important aspect in order to be considered a valid consideration.
If you want to find out if it is specifically the sexual preferences of the parents that have the main impact on their children... Then yes, you need a clear sample between famillies where only the sexual preferences of the parents are the main difference.
If you just want to push your propaganda, then it does not matter.
Do read about how social studies are conducted, Rick.
By the way... Dr. Regenerus admitted himself that his study is flawed it seems...Check this comment:
ReplyDeleteJim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin Broke this story on Saturday and I right away e-mail to Dr.Regnerus and surprisingly he e-mailed me back. In our back and forth e-mails he admitted that he could not find any true lesbains and no true gay father sat all. What he was basing his report on were people in a MIXED ORIENTATION MARRIAGE or MIXED ORIENTATION SEXUAL UNION one spouce Straight and the other Spouce gay. He tried to generalize this to say gays make bad parents. Well he only found 2 true lesbains and actually their children turned out GREAT :) Ha! I warned him that he needed to come out and say that the respondents to his survey were raised in a MIXED ORIENTATION MARRIAGE or else the gays were going to pound him, and rightfully so. I take a guilty pleasure in seeing how a day or two later he is now backing off on his research. Read this latest article where he says he might have made some mistakes in judgement. ""There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study," Regnerus said, adding it's true, he did not know that relationship. "People might say that's irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study," he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers." http://www.cbsnews[DOT]com/8301-504763_162-57451777-10391704/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/ Here you can read the e-mailes he wrote me before the you know what hit the fan and actually I worked real real real hard to make it hit the fan :) http://www.boxturtlebulletin[DOT]com/2012/06/11/45557#comment-125929
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/06/a-faulty-gay-parenting-study.html#ixzz220sqCfS7
I noted in an earlier reply how the Box Turtle guy discredits himself with a self contradiction:
Delete"In our back and forth e-mails he admitted that he could not find any true lesbains and no true gay father sat all. ...Well he only found 2 true lesbains and actually their children turned out GREAT :) Ha!"
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/studies-show-traditional-families-offer.html?showComment=1343654755593#c4890762773203051317
AnonyRus,
ReplyDelete>Straw man. That is not what humanism is about.
- {Humanists who disdain the traditional family} may be considered a subset of humanists in general.
Some examples:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed , and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever it's ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ..." - Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." - The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971
One of the key points of Feminism is based upon a misconception:
"Any system that functions on the assumption that one person in a group is better than the rest in that group based on gender, race or religion is as tired and dirty as King Tut’s dusty grave. The traditional family, as defined by Christianity and Islam, gave this primary role to the husband/father while the others were all subject to this rule."
- Note that Feminists often equate the male-leader-role as a "superiority" issue. It's not according to scripture. In a true understanding of the Christian family, husbands and wives are not superior or inferior to each other due to their roles. The husband is not to rule as a domineering tyrant, but as a humble servant.
"Ephesians 5.25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Did Jesus come demanding blind obedience just because He said so? Not at all! He did not come demanding to be served. Rather, He came to serve and to love"
http://loveyourwife.wordpress.com/
In short, one of the primary anti-traditional family motivations in Western Civ is based upon an untruth.
Many humanists argue that society needs to be liberated from the constraints of religion
Delete>Straw man. That is not what humanism is about.
- {Humanists who disdain the traditional family} may be considered a subset of humanists in general.
You do realize that you're committing a logical fallacy here, don't you?
"X is a Y trait."
"Not all X Y!"
"No, but some X do, so my statement is valid."
- If that is so, then it's a shame that Christian influences in society tend to undermine the Constitution and encourage violence against LGBTQ folk.
An exact parallel construction, and I can find just as many quotes to back it up.
It's not according to scripture.
According to your reading thereof. It certainly plays out that way in society every day -- which means that either a) people disagree with your reading, or b) Scripture is irrelevant.
> You do realize that you're committing a logical fallacy here, don't you?
Delete"X is a Y trait."
"Not all X Y!"
"No, but some X do, so my statement is valid."
- You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I did not state "X is a Y trait." - But that "many" do have that trait.
A more accurate annotation would have been:
Many X Y
Therefore, Y sometimes characterizes X
No logical fallacy.
By Contrast, you might want to consider that no bible-following Christians would be considered anti-traditional family, as far as Western civ is concerned.
DeleteNo X Y
Therefore Y does not signify X.
You wrote: if that is so, then it's a shame that humanistic influences in society tend
DeleteIn other words, what is the tendency of humanistic influences?
And when challenged on that, you offered up "Well, some humanists do this, therefore..."
In other words, you're perfectly comfortable calling them "humanistic influences" until someone calls you on it, whereupon, as usual, you backpedal and attempt to narrow your definition to the point where you can be "right".
And many Christian influences in society *do* tend to undermine the constitution (whether subtly, or fervently, a.k.a. the Dominionists) and encourage violence against LGBTQ folk. Your original statement and mine are directly parallel, and just as well supported.
Now -- I don't think all of them do, by any means; but I am trying to point out your dishonest rhetorical technique here.
By Contrast, you might want to consider that no bible-following Christians would be considered anti-traditional family, as far as Western civ is concerned.
This is irrelevant -- I have no idea why you even think you needed to make this point. (I also notice you sliding in one of your favorite modifiers, "bible-following" -- which usually means a No True Scotsman fallacy is on the loose.)
>you're perfectly comfortable calling them "humanistic influences" until someone calls you on it, whereupon, as usual, you backpedal and attempt to narrow your definition to the point where you can be "right".
Delete- It seems that you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. If that is the best kind of critique you have to offer, you are more than welcome to continue posting such criticisms. It only serves to amplify the lack of substance being offered as criticism.
1. I wrote a comment:
"If that is so, then it's a shame that humanistic influences in society tend to glorify relationships focused on pleasure without commitment and every single possible alternative to a traditional family."
2. I clarified that, 1) Anti-traditional family attitudes represent a subset of all humanists and, 2) No people who follow the tenets of the New Testament with respect to Western Civ. could rightly be categorized as anti-traditional family types.
3. You did not challenge these two points I made, but have begun to nitpick about the wording of my original comment claiming I am "back peddling" and "dishonest".
Sigh.
If people with anti-traditional family attitudes could be considered a subset of humanists in general then you would be correct to assert there is no correlation and my statement was false. However,
{people with anti-traditional family attitudes} may in fact be considered a subset of {humanistic influences} and so my original statement is in fact true, though perhaps lacking in the kind a clarity a full article on the subject could elucidate.
You seem to be a bit frustrated by the fact that many humanists hold anti-traditional family values. Why does this fact bother you so?
>Christian influences in society *do* tend to undermine the constitution (whether subtly, or fervently, a.k.a. the Dominionists) and encourage violence against LGBTQ folk.
Delete- Hmmm.
1. "Christians" - defined as those who believe and follow Christ, who teaches us to love our enemies,
2. "encourage violence against LGBTQ folk"
3. "undermine the constitution"
- Logically incoherent argument.
- It seems that you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. If that is the best kind of critique you have to offer, you are more than welcome to continue posting such criticisms. It only serves to amplify the lack of substance being offered as criticism.
DeleteActually, it's the critique you're responding to -- my more substantiative ones draw silence, which usually means you have no useful response.
2) No people who follow the tenets of the New Testament with respect to Western Civ. could rightly be categorized as anti-traditional family types.
And this is relevant to anything how? I didn't disagree with this statement.
and so my original statement is in fact true, though perhaps lacking in the kind a clarity a full article on the subject could elucidate.
Lacking the kind of clarity a well-written *sentence* could elucidate.
You seem to be a bit frustrated by the fact that many humanists hold anti-traditional family values. Why does this fact bother you so?
It doesn't bother me at all. However, I find your arguing tactics dubious at best, and since you don't answer any of my more substantiative points, this is the place to point out your tricks.
- Hmmm.
1. "Christians" - defined as those who believe and follow Christ, who teaches us to love our enemies,
Ah -- and that's where you're already wrong. I'm defining "Christians" as "people who self-identify that way."
Remember I said I smelled a "No true Scotsman" fallacy? My nose was right.
It wasn't meant as a proof. It was meant as a parallel construction to your original statement, so you could see the flaws in your construction.
> I'm defining "Christians" as "people who self-identify that way."
DeleteSo, to clarify your point, hate-filled 'Christians' (who are out of touch with the tenets of Christ and Christianity but use the name anyway) express hatred towards LGBTQ folk. ...and this hatred counts as a valid representation of Christianity in your opinion.
However...
Anti-family humanists, who express disdain for the traditional patriarchal family, as a reflection of Judeo-Christian values, in favor of 'modern family views' - (an attitude which in no way undermines or opposes the definition of the word humanist - but rather is in keeping with the definition of humanism)supposedly cannot be considered a humanist influence in society.
Uh, yeah, right.
hu·man·ist (hym-nst)
1. A believer in the principles of humanism.
2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
hu·man·ism
1. A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
Anti-family humanists, who express disdain for the traditional patriarchal family,
DeleteYour two parts here don't add up to the same thing.
I have a family, and I love it dearly.
I also think the traditional patriarchal family model is deeply flawed, and causes a huge number of problems.
So, don't you *dare* try and call me "anti-family".
Uh, yeah, right.
Uh, yeah, wrong.
Either both comparisons are valid, or neither is valid -- they are constructed the same, and have the same level of data in support.
Chris·tian (krschn)
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Note the word "or" in there.
As usual, you try and define away what you don't like, and expand the definition for the other side.
I also wonder why, Rick, you're responding here, but not to my more significant points above -- it seems that this "minor"
>Your two parts here don't add up to the same thing.
Delete- Actually, my definition included much more than just two parts. But if you want to nit-pick again, I'll add the word "traditional" so you have no more excuses:
"Anti-traditional family humanists, who express disdain for the traditional patriarchal family, as a reflection of Judeo-Christian values, in favor of 'modern family views' - (an attitude which in no way undermines or opposes the definition of the word humanist - but rather is in keeping with the definition of humanism)supposedly cannot be considered a humanist influence in society.
Uh, yeah, right.
If you need to, refresh your memory on the definition of humanism:
hu·man·ism
1. A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
"Anti-traditional family humanists, who express disdain for the traditional patriarchal family, as a reflection of Judeo-Christian values, in favor of 'modern family views' - (an attitude which in no way undermines or opposes the definition of the word humanist - but rather is in keeping with the definition of humanism)supposedly cannot be considered a humanist influence in society.
DeleteYou are missing the point, again.
I said that either *both* your statement about humanists and my statement about Christians were true, or *neither* were true. If you're willing to accept both, then accept them.
And try answering some of the methodological problems people have asked you above -- otherwise, again, we are left with the "Rick can't admit to being wrong, and will ferret out any possible excuse, ignoring anything that he can't defend" position.
>I said that either *both* your statement about humanists and my statement about Christians were true, or *neither* were true. If you're willing to accept both, then accept them.
Delete- You are wrong.
Firstly, your critique of my definition of Christianity, the "no Scotsman fallacy" is errant.
The Scotsmen argument is based on the precept that Scotsman are indeed Scotsman, irrespective of the personal preferences of individual Scotsmen and that personal preferences are incidental. In accordance with the analogy, a Scotsman would not be considered a "true Scotsman" just because he said, "I am a Scotsman."
Likewise, in accordance with the same reasoning, there are certain tenets of Christianity, as outlined in Scripture and the dictionary, that describe what a true Christian is (i.e. a follower of Christ). The argument that "people who self-identify that way" are all true Christians, whether or not they display a complete disregard for the tenets of Christiany, has no more support than saying, "All men who say they are Scotsmen are Scotsmen." It is an absurd argument.
In the case of your humanism, as I pointed out, having attitudes against traditional family structures is completely in line with the dictionary definition of humanism when it is recognized that traditional family structures in Western Civ are, to a large extent, based on scriptural patriarchal principles, even as the quotes I have offered by feminists outline.
Instead of *neither* being true, your definitions are found to be opposed to dictionary definitions while my definitions are completely in harmony with dictionary definitions. If you wish to deny that the English language has any relevance in this debate, you are welcome to and anyone reading this with a remotely objective viewpoint will understand you are offering a weak argument indeed. Keep pretending.
\Likewise, in accordance with the same reasoning, there are certain tenets of Christianity, as outlined in Scripture and the dictionary, that describe what a true Christian is (i.e. a follower of Christ).
DeleteAnd there are people who feel themselves Christian who disagree with you, Rick. You are abrogating to yourself the power to define who is and who isn't a Christian.
The argument that "people who self-identify that way" are all true Christians, whether or not they display a complete disregard for the tenets of Christiany, has no more support than saying, "All men who say they are Scotsmen are Scotsmen." It is an absurd argument.
Ah -- but you *regularly* make the argument when people bring up bad behavior by Christians, say, that they are "Not true Christians" -- you ignore or dismiss things Christians have done based on *your* judgment of their Christian status.
And *that* is the same as arguing: "All Christians do X!" "Well, McTavish doesn't do X" -- "Well, then McTavish isn't a true Scotsman."
And *that* is my point. You repeatedly (e.g. your arguments in re: Peter Singer a while ago) assert that groups you don't like are to be identified with their extremists, while asserting that groups you do exclude said extremists.
Indeed -- it has a significant bearing on *this* article, because it's the same sort of category error that Regnerus made: Comparing "Stable opposite-sex couples" with "Every couple that had same-sex activity" means that "unstable opposite-sex couples" are excluded, and every couple no matter how unstable is included in the "same-sex activity" list. Which, surprise surprise, biases the results, given the known and established result regarding the advantages of a stable family.
*You* are debating individual bits of wording. *I* am debating a logical and philosophical point.
>You are abrogating to yourself the power to define who is and who isn't a Christian.
ReplyDeleteUm, no.
Sigh.
As I stated, I appeal to both the secular dictionary and the Christian scriptures to help identify what a Christian is. At this point you are simply ignoring my comments and not addressing my points. If we set aside scriptural definitions for a moment and simply go with the secular dictionary, can you try to focus here please? Perhaps if I put a number in front of my point and offer a direct question, then you will acknowledge it?
1) Do you believe that the secualr dictionary should not be used to help identify the meaning of things in this world, such as what a Christian is?
>You repeatedly (e.g. your arguments in re: Peter Singer a while ago) assert that groups you don't like are to be identified with their extremists,
- Another poor excuse. Sorry, but I am appealing to the dictionary definition of humanism as well. Here we go again:
2) Do you really believe that the dictionary definition of humanism is not an acceptable basis for defining humanism?
>*You* are debating individual bits of wording. *I* am debating a logical and philosophical point.
- No, you are simply refusing to acknowledge my points. Please answer my questions plainly.
1) Do you believe that the secualr dictionary should not be used to help identify the meaning of things in this world, such as what a Christian is?
DeleteI do. If you'll notice, I'm the one who posted the dictionary definition of Christian. Under which, for example. R.J. Rushdoony fit.
And, if R.J. Rushdoony and his ilk fit, then the
2) Do you really believe that the dictionary definition of humanism is not an acceptable basis for defining humanism?
I never said it wasn't. I pointed out that you were painting with an overly broad brush, by using the term "humanist influences".
I then demonstrated the problem with the broad brush you were using, by using an equally broad brush to paint Christian influence.
If, as seems to be the case, you're willing to narrow down your claims significantly, then I'll presume that you accept the "neither of these statements is true" option, and proceed from there.
So, to put this back on a more "substantive" basis, as you asked before, have you any response to the following points:
1) Indeed, it is not possible to draw conclusions other than "stable families produce better outcomes".
Which, as suggested before, strongly encourages you to support same-sex marriage, as producing a greater chance of stability for same-sex families, and therefore for their children; if, at least, that's what you care about."
and
2) Have you any response to the indicated flaws in Regnerus' survey design, as pointed out, say, here:
And *that* is my point. You repeatedly (e.g. your arguments in re: Peter Singer a while ago) assert that groups you don't like are to be identified with their extremists, while asserting that groups you do exclude said extremists.
Indeed -- it has a significant bearing on *this* article, because it's the same sort of category error that Regnerus made: Comparing "Stable opposite-sex couples" with "Every couple that had same-sex activity" means that "unstable opposite-sex couples" are excluded, and every couple no matter how unstable is included in the "same-sex activity" list. Which, surprise surprise, biases the results, given the known and established result regarding the advantages of a stable family.
Whoops -- I failed to complete a paragraph:
DeleteAnd, if R.J. Rushdoony and his ilk fit, then the statement - "Christian influences in society tend to undermine the Constitution and encourage violence against LGBTQ folk."
is also true, if your construction is true.
>I do. If you'll notice, I'm the one who posted the dictionary definition of Christian.
ReplyDelete- This was my question:
1) Do you believe that the secualr dictionary should not be used to help identify the meaning of things in this world, such as what a Christian is?
You say that you do believe this. However, for practical debating purposes you have opted to use your own subjective definitions of Christianity and Christians, not objective ones:
I'm defining "Christians" as "people who self-identify that way."
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/studies-show-traditional-families-offer.html?showComment=1343667477259#c8236537465382312328
- By the way, I'd like to know where you posted a standard dictionary definition of Christianity. Would it be possible for you to post a link to that comment please?
>And, if R.J. Rushdoony and his ilk fit,
- Please demonstrate how 'R.J. Rushdoony and his ilk' fit standard dictionary definitions of Christianity - i.e. following and Christ and his teachings.
As far as my second question is concerned, you have completely ignored it, yet again. Truly amazing.
2) Do you really believe that the dictionary definition of humanism is not an acceptable basis for defining humanism?
Would it be possible you to please answer this simple question? Yes or no?
1) Do you believe that the secualr dictionary should not be used to help identify the meaning of things in this world, such as what a Christian is?
ReplyDeleteI believe it can be useful, yes.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
However, for practical debating purposes you have opted to use your own subjective definitions of Christianity and Christians, not objective ones:
"One who professes belief" is "someone who self-identifies as Christian."
Show me the "subjectivity".
- By the way, I'd like to know where you posted a standard dictionary definition of Christianity. Would it be possible for you to post a link to that comment please?
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/studies-show-traditional-families-offer.html?showComment=1343670124110#c66292806216454050 is where the above came from.
- Please demonstrate how 'R.J. Rushdoony and his ilk' fit standard dictionary definitions of Christianity - i.e. following and Christ and his teachings.
They profess to be Christian, to be born again, and all the rest. I cannot see into his heart, and I do not claim to be able to judge whether or not someone is Christian based on their interpretation of Scripture, as you seem to be claiming.
"Rousas John Rushdoony (April 25, 1916 – February 8, 2001) was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, and theologian and is widely credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement."
So, who are you to set up in judgment that he's not a Christian?
2) Do you really believe that the dictionary definition of humanism is not an acceptable basis for defining humanism?
I believe it can be part of such a basis; I do not accept a single dictionary as conclusive.
But I've never argued this point. I've argued that you attempted to paint all humanists with one brush, and you do so repeatedly. Yet, when someone who defines as "Christian" does something you don't like, you attempt to write them out of the definition.
Similarly, as you repeatedly refuse to address:
Comparing "Stable opposite-sex couples" with "Every couple that had same-sex activity" means that "unstable opposite-sex couples" are excluded, and every couple no matter how unstable is included in the "same-sex activity" list. Which, surprise surprise, biases the results, given the known and established result regarding the advantages of a stable family.
Now, will you address this point, since I've answered your simple questions?
1) Question: Do you believe that the secular dictionary should not be used to help identify the meaning of things in this world, such as what a Christian is?
Delete2) Your answer: I believe it can be useful, yes.
3) You offer a definition:
"One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."
- You had stated: "If you'll notice, I'm the one who posted the dictionary definition of Christian."
1) Is this the definition you had supposedly posted previously?
2) Where is the link to your posted definition I had asked for in my previous comment?
In my previous comment I had asked the following and you did not answer it:
- By the way, I'd like to know where you posted a standard dictionary definition of Christianity. Would it be possible for you to post a link to that comment please?
3) I had asked, "Do you really believe that the dictionary definition of humanism is not an acceptable basis for defining humanism?"
You answered: "I believe it can be part of such a basis; I do not accept a single dictionary as conclusive."
4) So, according to your understanding, a few different dictionary definitions would help to form a more objective view, is that correct?
5) You have asked a new question: Now, will you address this point, since I've answered your simple questions?
6) Your comment is incorrect. You still have not answered questions from my previous comment. It seems I have to ask a question on average of two or three times now before there is an answer.
In my previous comment I had asked the following and you did not answer it:
- By the way, I'd like to know where you posted a standard dictionary definition of Christianity. Would it be possible for you to post a link to that comment please?
Rick, you're having reading comprehension issues, and it worries me. r
DeleteSeriously -- get some help.
Go back and look at my previous comment. Look for the string http://templestream.
That's the link you asked for twice in your post (#2 and #6), claiming I hadn't posted it.
If you look at it, you'll see that the answer to #1 is "Yes", despite your dismissive "supposedly".
To answer your #4: I don't think there is a single objective view of something as nebulous and large as "humanism". For a working definition, more than one source is good -- for reasons you repeatedly demonstrate by cherrypicking your own sources and warping your own definitions.
Now, return to #5, since I've answered your questions *repeatedly* now, despite your inability to parse simple text to find your answers.
I would like to add to the discussion that Rick never managed to prove that humanism hinders traditional familly values. He put some quotes from militant feminists, but feminism and humanism are not the same thing. One can be a humanist and an antifeminist at the same time or vice-versa.
DeleteP.S. And still no reaction from Rick about Salman s case or the failure of Regnerus s conclusions
ReplyDeleteAs I suspect you know, don't expect to ever see them; it's very much Rick's M.O. to argue a thread as far as he can, and then *poof* start a new thread, either ignoring the previous thread's ending to restate his latest set of points or veering off somewhere else completely different.
DeleteIt's part of the "never admitting you might be in error" thing -- he prefers, it seems, to save face by dropping it rather than admitting he might be in error, or someone else might have a point.
If you bug Rick from one thread to another, he will grudginly return to the thread. It might take months, but there is a possibility that he will acknowledge his mistake 8)
DeleteI figure that leaving unanswered questions hanging lets anyone who bothers to read through the thread reach their own conclusions; however, I also refuse to let him bring back conclusions or points from other threads unchallenged, where they were challenged before.
Delete>Go back and look at my previous comment. Look for the string http://templestream.
ReplyDelete- There is a description but I don't see it identified as any particular dictionary definition. Is this a definition that you made up?
The following definitions are from reputable dictionaries:
1. Websters:
Chris•tian
a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1) : disciple 2 (2) : a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3) : a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2: Oxford
noun: a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
- You had stated,
"I do not accept a single dictionary as conclusive."
Would you consider Webster's and Oxford dictionaries to be equal to the standard of the definition quality you had offered? Which was the source?
threfreedictionary.com, because it came up first on Google.
DeleteI'm glad to see you can actually recognize a definition when it's pointed out to you the third time. (FYI: I modeled my definition directly on yours, which also lacked a cited source.)
I am curious to hear you explain the difference between:
"One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ"
(thefreedictionary.com)
and:
"one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ "
(Websters)
The Oxford eliminates the "professes", but under what standard is R.J. Rushdoony not a Christian by *any* of these definitions? Which, BTW, is what you've been trying to argue.
So, in other words, after asking repeatedly to see my definition, you come up with two definitions that are functionally identical? So where is your complaint?
Now that your risible chasing after definitions has been cleared up, and, presumably, your simple questions answered now that you have bothered to read the answers, it's my turn:
Similarly, as you repeatedly refuse to address, I wrote:
And *that* is my point. You repeatedly (e.g. your arguments in re: Peter Singer a while ago) assert that groups you don't like are to be identified with their extremists, while asserting that groups you do exclude said extremists.
Indeed -- it has a significant bearing on *this* article, because it's the same sort of category error that Regnerus made: Comparing "Stable opposite-sex couples" with "Every couple that had same-sex activity" means that "unstable opposite-sex couples" are excluded, and every couple no matter how unstable is included in the "same-sex activity" list. Which, surprise surprise, biases the results, given the known and established result regarding the advantages of a stable family.
Further, as I have asked before, in a slightly different form: So, Rick, since Regnerus' data supports the advantages of stable households, do you now support gay marriage as a way to generate more stable households in order to produce better outcomes for children?
Imnotandrei, do not ask questions you know the answer to. Rick does not care about the future of children, he only cares about their soul and their "life" after death.
DeleteThough, it does puzzle me why he has not killed his children before the age of reason like one deranged american woman did. She ensured a great after-life for her children and will join them since she did repent to the all-merciful christian monster. Her logic is impecable, but somehow Rick is hesitating to follow her footsteps. Maybe he still has some common sense left in him
>I am curious to hear you explain the difference between:
Delete"One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ"
(thefreedictionary.com)
and:
"one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ "
(Websters)
- Why is there a difference?
One emphasizes belief without context. The other emphasizes belief in the context of actual teachings and writings.
Because there are so many different interpretations of what Jesus stands for, it is quite possible to believe that Jesus Christ exists while at the same time opposing the actual teachings of the person.
In such a case, the label *Christian* is not a fitting description, any more than it would be fitting to call a man a Scotsman who was not born in Scotland, is not a Scottish citizen and has no Scottish blood in his ancestry. Mere words do not account for very much under such circumstances.
It may be helpful for me to make some venn diagrams to show why mere words are an unreliable means of identifying true characteristics.
Hm... Still no reply on Salman s case or the dishonesty of Regnurus s initial conclusions...
DeleteAnd how, pray tell, is this entire post not "abrogating to yourself the power to define who is and who isn't a Christian." -- you're picking the dictionary definition you want, then arguing with regards to the "actual teachings" -- according, again, to you.
DeleteSo, come on -- come out and tell us straight out that R.J. Rushdoony, prosperity preachers, the Pope, and Gene Robinson aren't "Christian", if that's what you're claiming.
(Note that I do not believe Gene Robinson is in the category of Christians whose views are bad for LGBTQ folk -- far from it -- but I have added him to the list to demonstrate even-handedness in your exclusions.)
It may be helpful for me to make some venn diagrams to show why mere words are an unreliable means of identifying true characteristics.
I hope you realize just how silly this statement sounds coming from someone who is making a tremendous effort to pick the *right* dictionary definition out of several ones to defend.
Oh, and Rick? Remember those two points?
DeleteSimilarly, as you repeatedly refuse to address, I wrote:
And *that* is my point. You repeatedly (e.g. your arguments in re: Peter Singer a while ago) assert that groups you don't like are to be identified with their extremists, while asserting that groups you do exclude said extremists.
Indeed -- it has a significant bearing on *this* article, because it's the same sort of category error that Regnerus made: Comparing "Stable opposite-sex couples" with "Every couple that had same-sex activity" means that "unstable opposite-sex couples" are excluded, and every couple no matter how unstable is included in the "same-sex activity" list. Which, surprise surprise, biases the results, given the known and established result regarding the advantages of a stable family.
Further, as I have asked before, in a slightly different form: So, Rick, since Regnerus' data supports the advantages of stable households, do you now support gay marriage as a way to generate more stable households in order to produce better outcomes for children?
>And *that* is my point. You repeatedly (e.g. your arguments in re: Peter Singer a while ago) assert that groups you don't like are to be identified with their extremists...
Delete- Some points.
1. Questions of truth. It's not so much a question of "like" and "don't like" behavior and people groups - but what is more in keeping with the question, "Which worldview is true?"
2. Peter Singer. You have brought up Peter Singer for the second time in this string. Atheists have repeatedly complained that I am responsible for bringing up the subjects of atheism and bestiality, however, if you wish to discuss this theme for some reason, it's your choice.
3. How groups are identified. Some belief groups are in perfect harmony with what is considered extreme behavior. I would remind you of some of your own quotes:
2. Is it possible that an animal is not being harmed and is enjoying the process (of bestiality?
Your answer: The possibility exists that this statement is true, so perhaps, yes. ;)
3. Do either of you believe bestiality should be legal for the public at large? Why or why not?
Your answer: I think right now it is a tricky subject, because consent is so hard to clarify, and especially when you consider all the edge cases and possibilities.
However, I also think that anyone violating animal consent in this fashion can be prosecuted under animal cruelty statues, so I don't think additional laws against bestiality do any good.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/05/reply-to-pz-myers-objective-moral-tools.html?showComment=1338611694475#c4760858910378645032
Based on your own quotes, I don't see why you would consider Singer an extremist or why his beliefs should be an embarrassment to secular humanists.
However, the fact that you, Myers, Reynold and many others have been extremely hesitant to discuss this issue points to the fact objective ethical truth exists.
The reason why I questioned Myers is explained here:
Ecclesiastes 12.11 states: “The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails--given by one Shepherd.” (NIV)
Goads are pointed prods that are used to help direct cattle and sheep. Pointed moral questions help to prick the conscience and guide people towards moral and ethical reason. The firmly embedded nails signify the fixed principles of logic and the reality of absolute truth. Logical arguments help to pin people down who have developed a false paradigm and a false view of reality. Logical arguments help people to see that their beliefs are not in harmony with reality.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/09/atheism-philosophy-and-evangelism-in.html
And here we go with the derail.
DeleteBut first:
1. Questions of truth. It's not so much a question of "like" and "don't like" behavior and people groups - but what is more in keeping with the question, "Which worldview is true?"
There is a clear bias in standards between groups you agree with (Christians) where members with whom you disagree are denied membership, and groups you disagree with (humanists) where all members are considered to agree with their most extreme members.
2. Peter Singer. You have brought up Peter Singer for the second time in this string. Atheists have repeatedly complained that I am responsible for bringing up the subjects of atheism and bestiality, however, if you wish to discuss this theme for some reason, it's your choice.
Nompe. It's your choice. Peter Singer is not "atheism and bestiality". Peter Singer is a humanist and, according to your previous attempts, all humanists are required to defend his positions.
(I notice, BTW, that after hammering on at great length about the definition of a Christian, you dropped that subject like a hot potato.)
3. How groups are identified. Some belief groups are in perfect harmony with what is considered extreme behavior.
Here we go -- you are asserting that "humanists" are in perfect harmony with each other, let alone some specific behavior.
Yet I doubt you'd accept that "Christians are witchhunters and seek the death of gays and lesbians" as true, even though there are significant portions of the Christian community who believe and support such things.
*That* is the point I am trying to make, why I have repeatedly accused you of "No True Scotsman"-ing.
I note you also omitted this:
Further, as I have asked before, in a slightly different form: So, Rick, since Regnerus' data supports the advantages of stable households, do you now support gay marriage as a way to generate more stable households in order to produce better outcomes for children?
So, one question answered with a derail, the other ignored, and the rest of the response unanswered. Less than 33%, Rick, not good.
>There is a clear bias in standards between groups you agree with (Christians) ...and groups you disagree with (humanists) where all members are considered to agree with their most extreme members.
Delete- No bias in standards at all.
If so, please show one Christian group that justifies bestiality in accordance with the tenets of Christianity..
Use the same standards I have used to identify such among atheists and secular humanists. I used personal quotes. So, show some quotes by Christians supporting bestiality and I will agree that I am being biased. My position has never been that all atheists or all humanists support bestiality, though I believe it is quite difficult for these groups to deny it is morally viable according to the most basic tenets of these beliefs.
>Peter Singer is a humanist and, according to your previous attempts, all humanists are required to defend his positions.
- Wrong. I will repeat it once again. I believe (and have shown) it is quite difficult for these groups to deny that bestiality is morally viable according to the most basic tenets of these beliefs. You yourself have demonstrated that you have a hard time clearly defining why bestiality should be considered immoral in accordance with your own beliefs.
>I notice, BTW, that after hammering on at great length about the definition of a Christian, you dropped that subject like a hot potato.
In such a case, the label *Christian* is not a fitting description, any more than it would be fitting to call a man a Scotsman who was not born in Scotland, is not a Scottish citizen and has no Scottish blood in his ancestry. Mere words do not account for very much under such circumstances.
It may be helpful for me to make some venn diagrams to show why mere words are an unreliable means of identifying true characteristics.
>Yet I doubt you'd accept that "Christians are witchhunters and seek the death of gays and lesbians" as true,
- Yes, that is because true Christians aim to follow the tenets of Christianity outlined in scripture.
>Less than 33%, Rick, not good.
- I find that you repeatedly misrepresent my points. When I have some time I will make some venn diagrams in order to show visually what does not seem to come across well with words.
In the mean time, you have your homework: Show one Christian group that justifies bestiality in accordance with the tenets of Christianity. I can show a number of atheists and secular humanists, extremely well respected ones, who justify this behavior under certain circumstances. Peter Singer is presently writing articles for the Counsel for Secular Humanism. Not bad for a fringe extremist who in no way represents secular humanists as a whole. :-)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=psinger_26_4
Oh, good grief, Rick; how bad is your reading comprehension again?
DeleteIf so, please show one Christian group that justifies bestiality in accordance with the tenets of Christianity..
I never said a word about bestiality in this thread, Rick. I certainly never said that Christian groups would justify it. I compared your assertion about "humanist influences" with an exactly parallel assertion about "Christian influences", and then pointed out that you repeatedly made the mistake of taking extreme cases and asserting they represented all members of groups you opposed, while disclaiming responsibility for members of groups you favored, and that this was rhetorically dishonest.
In such a case, the label *Christian* is not a fitting description, any more than it would be fitting to call a man a Scotsman who was not born in Scotland, is not a Scottish citizen and has no Scottish blood in his ancestry. Mere words do not account for very much under such circumstances.
And what of a man who has lived his life in Scotland, has been told from the day of his birth that he was Scots, has a long lineage of Scots blood, and disagrees with another Scotsman as to how to interpret Scots law? Because that's the claim you're making about how some people are not "True Christians".
A man self-described as a Calvinist, or a pastor, is not a "Christian" if you disagree with them? That's all the argument you've presented. No reason why any of the people I listed above should or should not be considered "Christian."
It may be helpful for me to make some venn diagrams to show why mere words are an unreliable means of identifying true characteristics.
Considering that the diagrams will be labeled with "mere words", I suspect that if you actually had clear thoughts, sentences would do just fine. There is nothing that can be expressed in a Venn diagram that cannot be expressed in words.
Indeed, all of it can be done using the following few constructions:
Some X are Y.
All X are Y.
No X are Y.
And combinations thereof: "Some X and some Z are Y, but not all X that are Y are Z, though all Y that are Z are X"
All a Venn diagram is is a way of portraying that graphically. If you can't break it down into statements like the above, your Venn diagram isn't properly constructed, and won't help.
Yet I doubt you'd accept that "Christians are witchhunters and seek the death of gays and lesbians" as true,
- Yes, that is because true Christians aim to follow the tenets of Christianity outlined in scripture
And yet those other Christians find support for their beliefs in Scripture. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", for example. That infamous bit in Leviticus about stoning men who lie with men as women.
So, the only standard we have for "Christian" here is, again, your word as to what "Scripture" supports or doesn't. And, you are setting up your interpretation of Scripture as the definition of Christian.
Peter Singer is presently writing articles for the Counsel for Secular Humanism.
And Peter Akinola is an Archbishop of the Anglican Church. And there's this fellow called a Pope. Oh, and we have that pastor in South Carolina, was it, who called for LGBTQ folk to be imprisoned in concentration camps?
In the mean time, you have your homework: Show one Christian group that justifies bestiality in accordance with the tenets of Christianity.
Utterly and completely irrelevant.
Further, as I have asked before, in a slightly different form: So, Rick, since Regnerus' data supports the advantages of stable households, do you now support gay marriage as a way to generate more stable households in order to produce better outcomes for children?
Damn! Rick has again derailed the discussion to bestiality... Time for another shot of vodka... God have mercy on my liver!
DeleteP.S. Still no reply on Salman s case or the dishonesty of Regnurus s initial conclusions...
Given how clear his speech has been, and how good his comprehension has been, if the Venn diagrams ever appear, I expect them to either a) be breathtakingly simple or b) look like they were drawn by Jackson Pollock.
DeleteRick does not care about the future of children, he only cares about their soul and their "life" after death.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's fair, actually -- if that were true, he would not go to such length to argue these points, and look for scientific backing for his views.
Consider his post a while back in which (in comments) he asserted that Romney or Paul would be better for POC than Obama as president -- it's risible, but it's showing concern for more than just their souls and afterlife.
I was mostly kidding here. Rick is a product of the modern human civilization like you and me. Even if his religion demands from him to care for the soul and reject the body, he just cannot do this. That goes against his culture and human nature. That is why religion is reinterpreted every century or dies out. On the other hand, the profound gape between those original bronze age commandemants (there is only so much room for reinterpretentions) and reality is a great source for neuroses
DeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDelete>Damn! Rick has again derailed the discussion to bestiality... Time for another shot of vodka... God have mercy on my liver!
- Sorry to disappoint you but it was Imnotandrei who brought up Peter Singer 2 times in this thread, a man known mainly for his support of bestiality.
1:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/studies-show-traditional-families-offer.html?showComment=1343686126284#c9101797968422098071
2:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/07/studies-show-traditional-families-offer.html?showComment=1343766637996#c8855591275834037383
- By the way, alcohol may offer a temporary comfort, but only Christ is able to forgive your sins and offer you deep and true inner fulfillment, peace and joy.
Imnotandrei,
ReplyDelete>you repeatedly made the mistake of taking extreme cases and asserting they represented all members of groups you opposed, while disclaiming responsibility for members of groups you favored,
- Wrong. The Venn diagrams at the following link outline why Hitler should not be considered a true Christian and why Peter Singer may rightly be called a true atheist and a true secular humanist.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/true-christians-true-scotsmen-and-venn.html
I'll answer them there. Meanwhile, you've dodged repeatedly a simple question here:
DeleteFurther, as I have asked before, in a slightly different form: So, Rick, since Regnerus' data supports the advantages of stable households, do you now support gay marriage as a way to generate more stable households in order to produce better outcomes for children?
Sorry to disappoint you but it was Imnotandrei who brought up Peter Singer 2 times in this thread, a man known mainly for his support of bestiality.
ReplyDeleteI should have known you'd rise to the bait and impeach your honor and honesty further.
Mainly known to *you*, perhaps; certainly not to the rest of the world. This is another case of your double-standard.
For example, would you accept that Pat Robertson is mainly known for his beliefs regarding Katrina as punishment for New Orleans' sin?
- By the way, alcohol may offer a temporary comfort, but only Christ is able to forgive your sins and offer you deep and true inner fulfillment, peace and joy.
Alcohol can have at least a demonstrable, measurable effect, unlike your other prescription.
>For example, would you accept that Pat Robertson is mainly known for his beliefs regarding Katrina as punishment for New Orleans' sin?
ReplyDelete- That may very well be true, I'd have to see the stats on actual articles in order to form an opinion. I would not doubt it if it were and I would not be upset either. I would be perfectly willing to accept it. Why should it bother me if it's true?
I find it quite odd that it deeply offends you if someone should point out that a famous secular humans professor is mainly known for his support of bestiality. I'm not quite sure how pointing out details on subjects you have been bringing up repeatedly (a professor who believes that bestiality is objectively and morally justified) is to "impeach my honor". Quite ridiculous.
Why should it bother me if it's true?
DeleteIt's not. I can assure you of that.
Just like your comment about Singer isn't true.
I find it quite odd that it deeply offends you
It doesn't offend me. It disappoints me that you are at best wildly misinformed, at worst deliberately mis-speaking.
You are lying in your description of Singer. Your honesty is part of your honor. Thus, you are behaving dishonorably.
>Just like your comment about Singer isn't true.
DeleteOh but it is true.
Just search Peter Singer's name on the Internet and see what comes up. Three examples:
1. "Australian philosopher Peter Singer has a knack for raising controversy with his work in applied ethics. Read more at Biography.com.
Australian Peter Singer has been called both "the most influential living philosopher" and "the most dangerous man in the world." He is best known for his applied ethics and controversial perspective on abortion, animal liberation and infanticide."
http://www.biography.com/people/peter-singer-39994
2. Singer's views are elaborated upon in Wikipedia, implying they are quite well known:
Zoophilia (Peter Singer article)
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers' Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that "sex with animals does not always involve cruelty" and that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.[40] This position is countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.[41] The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.[42]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
3. Who is Peter Singer and why should you care about him? Simple, Peter Singer, maybe the most dangerous man in the world today.
The first time I saw this article it had been posted
to the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)-Animal Talk E-mail List.
I wrote Patti Strand at NAIA and ask if she could help me
contact the author for his permission to post it to our web site.
http://www.mofed.org/Who%20is%20Peter%20Singer.htm
We're not just talking about Christian interests, but liberals interested in animal protection, liberals and conservatives both interested in guarding against infanticide, and many different kinds of people are generally concerned with what Singer is teaching college students and others in his sphere of influence.
So, let's see: "mainly known for", and it's not mentioned in the first citation at all. In the second one, you went down to subentry 3.5.5 to get your citation. And the third is a specific denunciation of Singer.
DeleteI think it would be safe to say that Singer is "mainly known for" being a humanist, a philosopher, an animal rights activist, and a utilitarian.
That would make your claim untrue.
And you know what? Had you not defended it so vigorously, I might have been willing to accept it was ignorance; a truly impressive degree of ignorance, and probably willful, but ignorance. But given that you have now doubled down on your defense, and scrolled way down the wikipedia page, I can only conclude that you are engaged in trying to defend a deliberate propagandistic falsehood.
In other words, Rick, you're a liar.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, you are posting off-topic all over the blog, as noted here:
P.S. Still no answer on Salman s case and no acknowledgement on the dishonesty of Dr. Regnurus
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/true-christians-true-scotsmen-and-venn.html?showComment=1344014482343#c8464315404994660054
As I already pointed out, it was Amy Davidson's critique that was misleading not Dr. Regnurus' report:
What I find ironic is that Amy Davidson, a senior editor at The New Yorker, is doing exactly what she criticizes Regnerus for doing, that is, drawing false conclusions from inaccurate labeling, only in her case it would seem to be blatantly disingenuous because she offers herself as one who is doing the correcting of the same fault she is guilty of.
Let's begin with the title:
A Faulty “Gay Parenting” Study
Nowhere does Regnerus describe his study as a "Gay Parenting" study. This is misleading.
The actual title of the report is:
"How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study"
The parameters of the study are clearly outlined in the report:
Abstract
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
The scope of the study is outlined:
2.3. What does a representative sample of gay and lesbian parents (of young adults) look like?
The weighted screener data—a nationally-representative sample—reveal that 1.7% of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 39 report that their father or mother has had a same-sex relationship, a figure comparable to other estimates of children in gay and lesbian households (e.g., [Stacey and Biblarz, 2001a] and [Stacey and Biblarz, 2001b]
As you continue to read the actual report, you read why Regnerus found it difficult to locate monogamous and continuous same-sex parents.
Oh, and by the way, for the 6th time:
DeleteFurther, as I have asked before, in a slightly different form: So, Rick, since Regnerus' data supports the advantages of stable households, do you now support gay marriage as a way to generate more stable households in order to produce better outcomes for children?
R:Nowhere does Regnerus describe his study as a "Gay Parenting" study. This is misleading.
DeleteThat is still the impression that people get when they read his study. Do I need to remind you that you fell in the same trap, Remember your own words on July 28th at 6:18 PM?
"Because there is no elaborate definition, then you are proposing the people in the study were not gay?"
Most people made that mistake when reading Regnurus s paper. He knew that his conclusions were dishonest, since he had known that the paper would generate a huge controversy, even if his study failed to find anything new.
Only after his dishonesty was revealed, Regnerus started to backpedal.
R:As you continue to read the actual report, you read why Regnerus found it difficult to locate monogamous and continuous same-sex parents.
Rick, the problem is not the outline, but his conclusion. The conclusion is the most important part of a scientific paper. Regnurus had no right whatsoever to make the following conclusion based on that precise study:
"Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses—the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
>That is still the impression that people get when they read his study.
Delete-No. Wrong.
When people actually read a) the title of Regnerus' study and b) the introduction and c) how the data was gathered and d) the actual facts, it is all clearly spelled out. The main problem is that people such as Amy Davidson sense a need to disingenuously smear the report because they don't like the implications.
Read the facts. Read the title:
A Faulty “Gay Parenting” Study
Oh, wait. Nowhere does Regnerus describe his study as a "Gay Parenting" study. This is misleading.
The actual title of the report is:
"How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study"
The parameters of the study are clearly outlined in the report:
Abstract
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
A:That is still the impression that people get when they read his study.
DeleteR:No. Wrong.
So you ackmowledged that you did not read the title of Regnurus s study, have not payed attention to the methodology nor had paid any attention to the gathered facts? But you still posted an ureliable source as "proof" that a gay lifestyle is harmful.
I would also like to remind you of your quote if you are going to deny your own shortcomings:"Because there is no elaborate definition, then you are proposing the people in the study were not gay? Ridiculous excuse.Most people understand what the word homosexual means without an elaborate definition"
R:Read the facts. Read the title
Sigh...Rick...Repeat after me:
CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION, CONCLUSION!
The discussion of Amy Davidson s article is a RED HERRING! The problem discussed is Regnerus s paper in this thread.
Based on his methode Regnurus had no right to make the following CONCLUSION:
"Although the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses—the empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
Cherry picking from the conclusion is not honest. Why did you leave important details out? Shame on you.
Delete"The results of analyzing a rare large probability sample reported herein, however, document numerous, consistent differences among young adults who reported maternal lesbian behavior (and to a lesser extent, paternal gay behavior) prior to age 18."
As has been noted before, Rick, that statement you quoted is part of *why* the study is flawed.
DeleteI'll try explaining this to you one more time, in case it is error rather than deliberate mendaciousness on your part.
His sample consisted of two parts: 1) young adults in stable, heterosexual pairings and 2) young adults at least one of whose parents had a same-sex relationship.
Now, "stability" has long been established as a positive factor. Note that, except for the very small (what was it? 2 lesbian cases and an unknown number of gay male cases) number of possible stable long-term relationships in pool #2, there is high likelihood of *instability* in pool #2, due to the selection process.
Which means that pool #2 was pre-biased towards a negative result. That Regnerus found such is not surprising, and invalidates the usefulness of his research, and most especially his larger claim.
"I couldn't find the data" is not a valid excuse for speculating without it. If we have to wait 10-15 years for useful and reliable data on young adults in stable same-sex parenting relationships, then we wait 10-15 years; that's how science, as opposed to propaganda work, is supposed to be done.
R:Cherry picking from the conclusion is not honest. Why did you leave important details out? Shame on you.
DeleteCherry picking? That is precisely the problem of why Regnurus s study is dishonest. HE HAD NO RIGHT to make any kind of conclusion about gay parenting (be it positive or negative), but he still did.
It is IRRELEVANT what kind of excuses or explanations he gives in the abstract or at the end of the paper. HE HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE ANY KIND of conclusion about gay parenting, but he DID. He knew that the study had nothing to do with gays, but he still made some claims about them and tricked thousands of people (including you Rick).
Are you going to admit the the study is faulty or not? You have been presented TWICE with the quote that proves it is dishonest. You have not been able to make any kind of excuses for his sake, but you still clinge to your position. Is the world going to end if you admit your mistake?
-Please reread the abstract:
DeleteAbstract
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements. In this debut article of the NFSS, I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610
Please note the source of the data outlined int the first sentence:
"...to a large, random sample of American young adults..."
Please note a key word in the sentence:
"random"
If gay relationship samples are found to be more unstable than straight ones and unstable relationships make for messed up children, then why should an objective study be manipulated to only compare stable gay relationships against stable straight relationships?
The study was based upon a real cross section of a real society. Too bad if the results don't follow your narrative of reality.
R:If gay relationship samples are found to be more unstable than straight ones...
DeleteAgain Rick...Do you want to go in a circle for ever? We have been there before.
HE COULD FIND ONLY TWO CHILDREN WHO HAD PARENTS OF THE BOTH SEX AND LIVED WITH THEM FOR 18 YEARS AND WHO TURNED OUT GREAT!!! BUT REGNURUS STILL MADE DISHONEST CLAIMS!!!!
It does not matter if it was random or not. The sample is TOO SMALL to make ANY kind of conclusion.
And do remember that Regnerus s study cannot be used as reference for gay parenting since gay marriages are only a recent phenomena as adoption by gays. We also know that straight/gay relationships break 99% of times, which have a negative impact on children. And that is precisely what Regnerus used to patch up dishonetly his data.
The New Family Structures Study (NFSS) is a social-science data-collection project that fielded a survey to a large, random sample of American young adults (ages 18–39) who were raised in different types of family arrangements.
DeleteThe survey was given to a random sample of adults.
That does not mean that the data used in the research was chosen at random -- indeed, if you look at the *next sentence*:
I compare how the young-adult children of a parent who has had a same-sex romantic relationship fare on 40 different social, emotional, and relational outcome variables when compared with six other family-of-origin types.
The way the data was divided was not at all "random". Which we have been saying from the beginning.
Really, Rick -- the next *sentence* and it contradits the point you're trying to make.
If gay relationship samples are found to be more unstable than straight ones and unstable relationships make for messed up children, then why should an objective study be manipulated to only compare stable gay relationships against stable straight relationships?
Because in order to do good *science* you separate that out into two statements, and test them. By linking them the way you have, you're biasing your test.
Regnerus tested:
"Stable straight relationships" vs. "All relationships, stable or unstable, with a same-sex component"
That's two variables: gender of the participants, and stability.
If you wanted to test outcomes, you should do: "Stable different-sex relationships" vs. "Stable same-sex relationships", and then you would have a valid basis for comparison.
For responsible writing on this kind of question, I refer you here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/divorce-marriage-rates-fo_b_1085024.html
In which teh author does *not* conclude, even though the rate-per-year of divorces in same-sex couples is half that of different-sex ones, that SSM is more stable -- but that we might be looking at biases in the data, and we need to wait to draw a conclusion.
*That* is responsible writing by a layman on a social scientific point.
I think rick has expressed his opinion in a mature manor. If you do not think so no one made you read this. It doesn't pop up and force its view down your throat every time you open your home page. Don't get do agro about these things, no one will ever completely dominate the other side. So chill. That is all :D
ReplyDelete