Gay Parents: 11 x more likely to molest and other "goodies"

[_Sammy Jankins]

I've got to say that I don't see the slithering. If Yahoo Bot is of the opinion that all studies of this type are unreliable, then it seems to me his positions as expressed here are pretty consistent. I don't see anything inconsistent between applauding someone for at least trying to bring relevant evidence to bear on the issue even if he personally doesn't think evidence of that type is worth much.

When a study says that a group of people is more prone towards molestation it's difficult to conceive someone applauding the study if they believe it's false.

Take my hypothetical study for example. What if I had performed a faulty study that said Mormons were more prone towards molestation. Why would anyone applaud my study if they believed my results were false. What have offered other than bad research that slanders a demographic?
What if I said it about any other demographic?

[_Chap]

I take no lessons other than that the somebody has finally come up with a statistical study which says that children of gay parents are at a higher risk of abuse or whatever than straight parents.
Do I agree with the conclusion? I don't know what to think on it one way or the other.

The study cited was crap, and certainly did not show what bcspace claimed. Anyone who bothers to look at the critiques made of it can see that. Including Yahoo Bot, who is fast becoming a candidate for the Ignore (Foe) feature.

I'd support that.

What does the man mean? Actually, I think he does not post to convey meaning, but merely intends to distract and annoy.

"Having the form of reason, but denying the spirit thereof" more or less sums it up, I think.

[_Yahoo Bot]

When a study says that a group of people is more prone towards molestation it's difficult to conceive someone applauding the study if they believe it's false.

It is the first time I've ever heard of such a statistical study. That is noteworthy. Again, I don't credit it. I don't think much of studies to the contrary. I guess I've had too much experience seeing these kinds of sociological studies tossed out in court as unreliable.

When cold fusion was announced, I thought it noteworthy, an interesting theory, something that might be possible; something for future consideration. When, on further review, it didn't look like anything, it still occupied a spot in my mind as something worthy of discussion and further inquiry.

[_Res Ipsa]

I've got to say that I don't see the slithering. If Yahoo Bot is of the opinion that all studies of this type are unreliable, then it seems to me his positions as expressed here are pretty consistent. I don't see anything inconsistent between applauding someone for at least trying to bring relevant evidence to bear on the issue even if he personally doesn't think evidence of that type is worth much.

When a study says that a group of people is more prone towards molestation it's difficult to conceive someone applauding the study if they believe it's false.

Take my hypothetical study for example. What if I had performed a faulty study that said Mormons were more prone towards molestation. Why would anyone applaud my study if they believed my results were false. What have offered other than bad research that slanders a demographic?
What if I said it about any other demographic?

Of course, I can't speak for Yahoo Bot, but I would applaud the effort to at least try and deal with facts, as opposed to mere assertion and prejudice. To do so, is a concession that we can gather meaningful evidence. I would then use the flaws in the study to make my case that there is really no rational basis for restricting marriage to people of the opposite sex.

[_Chap]

To be honest, if someone has a repellent and ignorant prejudice, I'd rather that it stayed at the level of incoherent redneck bar-chat rather than got dressed up in a disguise of social science that enabled it to rise from the level of drunken mumblings to the exalted heights of utterance inhabited by bcspace and Yahoo Bot on this board.

The content of the prejudice is in no way improved, but now a layer of people who would not perhaps have felt happy saying "all fags are child molesters" feel just that little bit more comfortable about it, counta' it's all bin proved by science now.

[_Res Ipsa]

To be honest, if someone has a repellent and ignorant prejudice, I'd rather that it stayed at the level of incoherent redneck bar-chat rather than got dressed up in a disguise of social science that enabled it to rise from the level of drunken mumblings to the exalted heights of utterance inhabited by bcspace and Yahoo Bot on this board.

The content of the prejudice is in no way improved, but now a layer of people who would not perhaps have felt happy saying "all fags are child molesters" feel just that little bit more comfortable about it, counta' it's all bin proved by science now.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Especially given that a substantial portion of the U.S. population seems to feel it is entitled to its own facts.

I still lean the other way. Maybe it's because I feel it's more likely that actual justice will be done when we have a battle of facts. I think that the dismal quality of studies presented by the Prop 8 proponents had a very significant impact on the outcome. Of course, that only works with folks who are interested in figuring out the truth.

[_Chap]

To be honest, if someone has a repellent and ignorant prejudice, I'd rather that it stayed at the level of incoherent redneck bar-chat rather than got dressed up in a disguise of social science that enabled it to rise from the level of drunken mumblings to the exalted heights of utterance inhabited by bcspace and Yahoo Bot on this board.

The content of the prejudice is in no way improved, but now a layer of people who would not perhaps have felt happy saying "all fags are child molesters" feel just that little bit more comfortable about it, counta' it's all bin proved by science now.

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Especially given that a substantial portion of the U.S. population seems to feel it is entitled to its own facts.

I still lean the other way. Maybe it's because I feel it's more likely that actual justice will be done when we have a battle of facts. I think that the dismal quality of studies presented by the Prop 8 proponents had a very significant impact on the outcome. Of course, that only works with folks who are interested in figuring out the truth.

You are probably right. But the proviso that I have underlined in your post is a vital one - and the people who think that free speech means no-one is allowed to point out that they are too ignorant to know where to wipe themselves do seem to be becoming more numerous, and more confident.

[_Res Ipsa]

Agreed.

[_Sammy Jankins]

It is the first time I've ever heard of such a statistical study. That is noteworthy. Again, I don't credit it. I don't think much of studies to the contrary. I guess I've had too much experience seeing these kinds of sociological studies tossed out in court as unreliable.

When cold fusion was announced, I thought it noteworthy, an interesting theory, something that might be possible; something for future consideration. When, on further review, it didn't look like anything, it still occupied a spot in my mind as something worthy of discussion and further inquiry.

Okay. So if poorly done research was released that stated that Mormoms were more likely to molest I'm just going to assume that you would also "like and applaud" it and consider it "noteworthy." Even if you didn't find it credible. While also knowing that some would take the "research" at face value and treat Mormons as potential molesters.
This is of course assuming your consistency.

[Guest]

I take no lessons other than that the somebody has finally come up with a statistical study which says that children of gay parents are at a higher risk of abuse or whatever than straight parents.

except that's not what the study says.

as i've already pointing out, the "study" could not possibly say that because it didn't even look at a sample of the "children of gay parents."

now if you want you can backtrack and say that you meant to type "a statistical study which says that children of a (singular) gay parent are at a higher risk of abuse or whatever than straight parents". but that will not help you at all, because once again you'd be describing a sample ("straight parents") that the study did not look at. instead, Regnerus started with a group of children of straight parents, and then excluded from the sample all those who hadn't spent their entire childhood (0 to 18) in an intact two parent household! and even from that select group, he further excluded any adoptees.

weird, isn't it? it almost as though instead of controlling for a factor he had to know would skew the outcomes of his "hetero sample", Regnerus deliberately selected for that factor to make the outcome as skewed as possible. what on earth could possess him to spend the money of his anti-gay backers in such a careless way?