No, the "anti-homosexuality camp" statement was made in response to something Lalo posted, which I found childish. I think I can disagree with homosexuality without being anti-homosexual.
And as to your opinion of my personal experience as a basis for my opinion on the matter...well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I think you're being insultingly dismissive of what I think; you probably think I'm willfully ignorant.
I am aware that 8 people is a "statistically insignificant" number for a study; I also agree that a few personal experiences does not a study make.
I wasn't trying to do my own study, though.
SO what is wrong here?
I'm not doing a study, nor am I disproving ones already done; I'm not trying to formulate policy (though it's flattering you think I could! ), I'm not lobbying for gay parents to have their children taken away.
quote:I'm not doing a study, nor am I disproving ones already done; I'm not trying to formulate policy (though it's flattering you think I could! ), I'm not lobbying for gay parents to have their children taken away.
No, you're just saying that they should not be afforded the same amount of rights as heterosexuals.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Amazing, how I can type a post and not even be aware of what I'm saying. Thank you for clarifying that.
No, what I was saying was that, based on my personal experiences, children being raised by gay parents may suffer more than other children because of the issues concomitant with their parent's sexual orientation.
And I brought this up because it contradicts the studies cited by others here.
posted
I'm dismissive of any attempt to use personal experience as evidence for anything other than disproof of a complete generalization (such as "all x do y").
And you aren't trying to make a study, certainly. What are you advocating with regard to homosexuals and children?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the attitude seems to be that, since studies have shown gay families to be A-OK, then they must all be A-OK.
I knew several families that weren't, and part of the reason they werent' was becase of issues the children had with their parent's sexuality. Not to mention other things that I think may have been connected to parental gay identity but that I wasn't sure about.
I (how many times do I have to repeat this) do agree that my experiences were, based on your studies, statistically insignificant.
I imagine I would think along the same lines you are if presented with anecdotal evidence in favor of stem-cell research. ("If you don't let scientists experiment on embryos, then my mother will die of diabetes.")
But I wouldn't insultingly dismiss them; I would understand why that person had formed the opinion they had.
I didn't bring it up to introduce my grand plan for policy. I wanted to toss it out to see what you thought of it. I didn't think that it would upset you so, or that it would be such a big deal. I certainly would have kept it to myself had I known I would have to post so much about it.
*edit* sorry, I'm tired and I point tends to get lost. Studies aren't always right. And they aren't always the best basis, and not the only basis, on which policy should be formed. People's opinions, especially voters' opinions, matter, however they were formed. And it's important to know how they were formed.
posted
No, the studies have shown children raised by homosexual parents to be as well adjusted, on average, as those raised by heterosexual parents. This is a very different thing. I certainly don't think (having expressly denied it at least two or three times in this thread it would be hard to see how anyone would think I did think) that children raised by homosexuals are all going to be fine.
Its worth pointing out that several of the studies did find children of homosexual parents were more likely to be open about their sexuality -- but it was both a statistically small difference and one that did not seem to translate into differences in common measures of well adjusted-ness and happiness.
Also, its quite possible for your experiences to be fully in line with the studies. Many children go through emotionally stressful times in their lives. They react to what they perceive as the big issues in their lives. A parent being homosexual, especially if earlier perceived as heterosexual, is certainly a big issue. So the child has issues about that. Similarly how a child who has a parent thats in the military and always moving the family about might have issues with moving and making friends.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, though, for spending time and thought on your posts. I really didn't think this post was worth this kind of hullabaloo. Nice of you guys to think so. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say Fugu, I take studies that measure "well-adjusted" in children as being BS. Adjusted to what? By whose standereds? When it comes to sociology, I try to listen to what others have to say and found out, but in the end I go on my experience, because it's the only one from which I already know the biasis that led to those opinions.
posted
Regarding sociological studies, you presumably saw the thread. There were at least 4 or 5 different measures of well adjusted and happiness being used and every single one of them agreed.
Plus, its kind of hard to argue with results if one can't find many, or even any, results (not experiences, but results, and from a peer reviewed journal) which disagree. I somehow doubt there's any vast conspiracy to prevent their publishing, and there certainly are enough anti-homosexuality people out there to fund a legion of studies.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've got to understand Fugu, I respect the use of socialogy studies, and I see why they're important (especially because you can't make them any better if you don't keep trying) but, and I assume many others, feel that most sociology tests, and certainly ones trying to determine happieness, are very unreliable. People are not objects whose happieness can be measured like a velocity. It is insanley difficult to quantify emotion, and that's even if you've known someone for years. When I have both energy and time (hopefully as a break tomorrow between doing homework) I will look at these studies and tell you what I think, but fundementally I do not trust quantifying human emotion.
posted
I don't think I was being particularly snarky in my replies to you. I answered the first several questions of yours (ignoring the still snarky one about "abortuaries") quite civilly, and then you rolled your eyes at your experience being dismissed as anecdotal evidence. The thing is, anecdotal evidence should be dismissed in most cases. I pointed out that not merely many studies but every study (meeting certain basic criteria) on the subject agreed. That's a very sound reason for dismissing anecdotal evidence, particularly when (as I also pointed out) not everybody's anecdotal evidence agrees.
I never denied you had personal experience on the subject at all, despite further snarky comments such as
quote:I'm just pointing out that I DO have personal experience on the subject. Although I suppose, now, the complaint is that I haven't had enough personal experience, or experience of the quality of sociologists conducting a study.
That statement doesn't jive with
quote:I wanted to toss it out to see what you thought of it.
To be fair, I think you are more like the person in your latest post. But first you ignored my responses to your initial questions (re: common law marriage and popular voting), then came up with a string of posts that seem to be saying "well, I've seen it, so you're wrong" -- with regard to
quote:Well, the attitude seems to be that, since studies have shown gay families to be A-OK, then they must all be A-OK.
, which I think you'll find isn't present in any of my or other posts on the subject. The very first post I mention it in (which, I might point out, is after you made it explicit when it had only been discussed peripherally as per children raised in multiracial marriages) I say:
quote:Yep, every single sociological study (with certain standard restrictions: they had to be peer reviewed, they had to have subjects, that sort of thing) done on the subject found that children raised by homosexuals were every bit as well adjusted as those not. . . .And how this was more bad than the normal problems routinely experienced by children of heterosexuals (questions of identity, problems with authority, that sort of thing)?
It certainly doesn't seem like I'm denying children raised by homosexuals have problems to me.
I debated posting this, but your last post decided me:
quote:I must be a very mean person, because your civil reply to mine would have been great a while ago, but now just feels patronizing. I wonder why.
I don't think I was particularly uncivil; certainly no more so than yourself, though I don't believe in reciprocity of rudeness. Moreso, I think I have been fairly consistent in how I have discussed with you.
My initial post about the studies could likely have been tempered a bit more; it was brought on partly because it was only one or two weeks ago that we had quite a long thread on the subject, in which we discussed such studies. I do feel, however, that I clarified myself sufficiently in the note I made that this was not an attack on you, but on the general idea of using anecdotal evidence as a means of deciding any public policy, much less that which regards something so central to the human being as raising children.
I feel I have already adequately addressed the idea of popular opinion deciding issues in my response to your first question on the subject.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To make the implication in my last post more explicit, if its so easy to manipulate measures of happiness and well adjusted-ness, where are the studies showing the children of homosexual parents are not generally speaking as happy and well adjusted as those of heterosexual parents? I predict at least one has happened in the past couple years, but I haven't run into it.
Also, I think you misunderstand sociology. Its common wisdom among the sociologists I know that one must get to know someone to judge his or her happiness/well adjusted-ness fully accurately. But it is also common wisdom that some indicators can be used to, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, judge happiness/well adjusted-ness in aggregate across a population. For instance, if one person tells you he thinks lower taxes are good it doesn't necessarily mean he supports a specific tax cut. However, if seventy five percent of the people in a decent sized group tell you that they think lower taxes are good, you can be pretty sure most of the people in that decent sized group are going to support any specific tax cut that's not in the realm of absurdity.
Plus, when you read the study, note that several of the studies included in depth interviews of the sort involved in getting to know someone.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), I'm not lobbying for gay parents to have their children taken away.
