Study: Youngsters of 'gay households' negatively affected

It seems children raised by gays have more problems than those raised by heterosexual couple.


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1614682

 

Time to consider challenges to the research you referred to:

 

Gays saying this. I am shocked. Of course you believe them.

 

I think that far right wing researchers saying whatever, surely need to be challenged.

Be reasonable.

 

The University of Texas is right wing?

I guess social science research that will publish it is also right wing

 

I didn't say it was necessarily University of Texas.

The link I provided mentions the following:

 

That does not make it wrong. As always liberals attack sources and can not prove the facts wrong. The biased I see is your article making claims it is wrong like they know how the study was done. i doubt they would accept any study that puts gay in a negative light no matter how concrete the evidence is. Try using a non biased source to show this study is wrong.

I notice you say nothing about the place that is going to publish it

 

"Study: Youngsters of 'gay households' negatively affected"

negatively effected by Homophobes maybe...

 

I don't think I'll be throwing out other findings I've reviewed, just to agree with this study you've linked to; that's all.

As I've learned from experience, it is reasonable to EXPECT anti-homosexual organizations, to run semi-scientific studies and skew data so that gay people are 'compromised'. I'm not fooled (massively swayed) by ONE single study referenced within an internet forum.

The biased I see is your article making claims it is wrong like they know how the study was done.[/quote]
The "study" you just referenced here, isn't something I've heard about until today. Other studies have been out and peer reviewed for years now. You seem to think that I and others should grant your referenced study a position of superior validity, up against those we already know.

As I inferred before... what you've provided as evidence can be considered, but it isn't right to suggest that what you've accepted is 'correct' and others cannot challenge your alleged data/sources.

Can you blame them, considering all the negativity others have tried to pull from thin-air and directed toward them? You should think about that also.

No. Your source is hardly 'neutral' (AFA), and it is no stretch to figure out the person leading the "study" you reference, is connected with right-wing religious groups.

You'd be wrong to insist that people not be 'skeptical' of what you've shared here in this thread. Really, I don't mind you questioning me. And my purpose is to encourage others to NOT accept what you've posted at face value. I certainly won't; questions SHOULD be asked.

Does that matter, until people trust that it is truly valid?

 

Another 'review' of the "study" you related.

 

The "study" you just referenced here, isn't something I've heard about until today. Other studies have been out and peer reviewed for years now. You seem to think that I and others should grant your referenced study a position of superior validity, up against those we already know.

As I inferred before... what you've provided as evidence can be considered, but it isn't right to suggest that what you've accepted is 'correct' and others cannot challenge your alleged data/sources.


Can you blame them, considering all the negativity others have tried to pull from thin-air and directed toward them? You should think about that also.


No. Your source is hardly 'neutral' (AFA), and it is no stretch to figure out the person leading the "study" you reference, is connected with right-wing religious groups.

You'd be wrong to insist that people not be 'skeptical' of what you've shared here in this thread. Really, I don't mind you questioning me. And my purpose is to encourage others to NOT accept what you've posted at face value. I certainly won't; questions SHOULD be asked.



Does that matter, until people trust that it is truly valid?[/QUOTE]

You mean like the biased pro homosexual studies the OP states were bad? You attack the reporting agency because all you can find is gays saying the study is wrong.

The controversy continues even though many say the study is good and earlier studies were flawed

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ing-studies-draw-both-praise-and-outrage.html

 

And another source, applying the necessary questions that most reasonable people would.

Don't put up some latest study in a forum, and expect people to just BUY it.

 

More gays I am not surprised. I see you have no sources by other behavioral scientists just the gay community.

 

Well, expect "gays" and other 'credible' groups to challenge what your study says.

We'll see what pans out in the months to come.

 

Another pro gay writer. I am shocked

 

Of course.

I've seen so many right-wing homophobe organizations come up with this/that anti-gay findings... I've learned to wait and see those studies challenged by peers over time.

 

I do not see the gays as reliable since the study is about them

 

The problem is there is another study showing pro gay studies as false

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ing-studies-draw-both-praise-and-outrage.html

 

The study is flawed. They compared kids raised by straight parents to kids raised by gay parents, BUT - the gay parents may have been married to someone of the opposite sex already, and they didn't use the gay kids raised by gay couples in a long term relationship. In short, they compared long term relationships involving children with short term gay relationships. Its a biased study.

 

@ptif219
Then why give credibility to a study produced by anti-gay organizations that create self serving results?
You said that it was not relevant to cite the source of the study as a compromising factor, and then chastise the negative reviews of the study because they have a pro-gay agenda.
Your arguments are completely inconsistent and internally self defeating.
And I'll bet you don't understand that, do you?

 

Well said. Thank you!

 

Very true. Based on the feedback I've heard since the study made the news, that is what many credible critic are saying.

Right. That is consistent with all of the criticisms of the study I've read or listened to so far.

And here is something that many anti-gay people don't think about:

If a truly viable study can highlight real problems with gay relationships and/or families, then most "GAY" people would WANT to know about those problems.

But what many homophobic groups try to do with BOGUS studies, is sway pubic opinion and LAWS against homosexual people period.

They shoot themselves in the darned foot virtually every time.

 

I've just scanned it--my eyes are hurting. But it is interesting. Anymore---no social science study is credible to me. The whole field is tainted with bias.

I will say---that I appreciate the whole thing laid out--where I haven't seen that type of transparency from the studies saying gay parents are better parents.

Anymore people need to see the whole methodology and use their commonsense--and if a study isn't laid out for all to see then you can just scratch it off the credibility list.

 

All human beings have biases. Still, I wouldn't dismiss ALL scientific data, not by any means.

Many people have their perceptions and biases about 'homosexuality'; they aren't THAT objective.

Still, if various studies can provide a more objective view of what many are trying to look at, it surely can be helpful overall.

As I implied before... Even studies NOT reflecting a totally positive light on homosexuality can be helpful (even to homosexual people). In that, they (as human beings) can be informed about certain difficulties or pitfalls they may encounter in their relationships or families.

For certain, we should never use any study in an effort to discriminate against or foster hatred of any kind toward homosexual people.

Misused science is no better than bad science.

 

You think it is biased because it is bad for gays. The truth is the earlier studies were flawed

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ing-studies-draw-both-praise-and-outrage.html