And this is why we seem to talking in circles. I reject the assertion that the hypothesis must be same-sex versus opposite sex. At least, that isn’t the hypothesis I’ve been discussing.
Hypothesis: Given two populations of same-sex families, one where the parents are married and one where the parents are not married, the population of families with married same-sex parents are likely to have more positive outcomes than the population of same-sex families where the parents are not married.
The congressional hearings are about DOMA… (i.e., marriage) NOT about gay parenting. I realize that the FoF would like to contort things and can’t help themselves but fall into the de facto frothing about how terrible gay people are, but their short-sightedness should not be the standard by which our discourse runs. Just because FoF are a pile of idiots does not remove the fact that the study in question supports the notion that the set of families headed by married same-sex couples are likely to outperform not-married same-sex couples.
So while FoF tried to use the study to say same-sex parents suck (which the study does not say), the study does support the idea that married same sex parents are better than not-married same sex parents. While this isn’t necessarily the opposite of what FoF said, it is the opposite of what they are trying to achieve (stopping gay marriage). In other words, the study does not say anything about the relative merits of gay parenting versus opposite sex parenting, but it does say something about gay-married parenting versus unmarried gay parenting. And that something supports gay marriage.
That’s not FoF’s hypothesis. The viruently anti-gay FoF would hypothesize the negative: Given two populations of same-sex families, one where the parents are married and one where the parents are not married, the population of families with married same-sex parents are likely to have equally negative outcomes as the population of same-sex families where the parents are not married.
No, the study doesn’t say that. You reach that conclusion from the study only because you add an assumption: namely, that same-sex couples in marriages would provide similar benefits as opposite-sex couples in marriages. Where’s your evidence for that claim (in the study?)
If you start, as you must, from the proposition that it’s unknown whether same-sex and opposite-sex married couples produce similar benefits to children, then you can’t point to anything in the study to challenge that proposition.
You’re adding an assumption, perhaps just derived from common sense: that marriage, per se, provides these benefits. But on what data point FROM THE STUDY do you rest that conclusion? The study didn’t ever distinguish between gay and straight married couples. It included no statistically significant gay married couples. It therefore cannot be used to prove anything about gay married couples.
Bricker thinks it is my job to show that the study applies to same-sex couples. I assert that the onus is actually on him to give a reason that it doesn’t. Why shouldn’t the study apply to same-sex couples? For what reason should same sex couples be excluded? As for evidence, I’ll point to the verbiage, presumably from the authors, that same-sex couples were not excluded. So if same-sex families were not excluded, then why would someone insist on excluding them?
What CAN you conclude from the study? Based on your reasoning we can’t conclude anything not explicitly stated in the study. The study only covers a specific set of families. Based on a strict interpretation of what is and is not in the study, we wouldn’t be able to conclude anything outside of that set. That would make the study pretty pointless. So perhaps a good place to start is what are the studies conclusions and to whom can we apply these conclusions to? Can we apply them to Asians? Can we apply them to left-handed people? If not, then what are the conclusions of the study?
That how these studies work. They sample a sub-population and apply the results to a larger population. Obviously, the sub-population is not completely representative of the larger population, but short of surveying the entire population of the planet, I don’t know what else the authors could do.
I. The study shows benefit of marriage
II. The study does not exclude same-sex couples from its sample population.
Therefore, applying the study to same-sex couples’ families is appropriate. However, none of this is proof of anything. Supporting evidence, yes. Proof, no. But that is the case for the general conclusions as well.
If someone wanted to explore same-sex couples more, they could and that study would expand on the knowledge gathered here. In the absence of contradictory evidence, the current (presumably) valid evidence stands. Until someone shows me a study that demonstrates that same-sex couples (or Asians, or left-handed people) should be excluded from these findings, the current findings apply to all.
And as an aside, it sure would be helpful for someone else to jump in here, because this is one of those times I feel as though I’m making an absolutely correct argument which other people uncomfortably realize is correct, but because it has a flavor of anti-gay sentiment to it, are reluctant to buttress my point. So they just stay silent.
Now, sachertorte. Let’s explore a question you raise: can this study apply to Asians?
There’s no reason to assume it does not.
BUT – and here is the point you’re missing – if someone came along and said, “Married Asians produce better child outcomes than married couples of other races,” then we could not use this study to prove that claim. We could not use this study to disprove that claim, either. You see, the study (so far as I know) does not break out married couples by race. So it’s utterly useless to support the claim that Asian couples raise children better, and it’s utterly useless to support the claim that Asians do not raise children better.
Do you disagree? Is there some aspect of the study that answers that question about Asians?
So let’s pretend that’s my claim: after all, we all know that Asian parents put more emphasis on education and performace of kids than other races do. I say it’s obvious that Asian married parents produce better results for kids than non-Asian married parents.
Does the study support my claim?
Can you use anything in the study to disprove my claim?
Well in my case it is just because the point has been adequately made and this seems like a bit of nitpicking. The study, by itself, says nothing about the possible benefits of marriage to the children of gay parents. It is suggestive that marriage would be of benefit to the children of gay parents by extrapolation, yes, especially in the context of previous studies that show that outcomes to children of gay parents are sensitive to the same characteristics that outcomes to children of heterosexual parents are. H=G; f(m)H= better outcome; f(m)G= ? But by itself it informs on the question not at all. Minnery was, most generously, misrepresenting the study when he claimed it demonstrated the potential harm of gay marriage or even of gay parenting compared to heterosexual parenting (which previous studies have shown is a nonexistent harm) but others who believe this study proves the converse are also mistaken.
I haven’t said anything because you seemed to be handling the debate perfectly well on your own. But if you want someone to throw in a “+1,” consider it done.
No. To reach the conclusion you have arrived at, ‘marriage is better for children not matter what gender the parents are’ is beyond the pale of the study.
We can agree that at least a majority of those studied (by statistical probability) are heterosexual, if this was not the case I believe it safe to say that information would have been included in the study, therefore, what this says about marriage does not include gay marriage specifically.
You don’t get to pick data points out and say they’re equal to the Normal Distribution and therefore prove something statistically.
So why do you insist that the study does not apply to gay parents?
I’m not missing anything. The point you are missing is that I’m not trying to say that gay parents are better than straight parents.
Please re-read what I have been writing. You seem to have an idea of what I’ve been saying and refuse to acknowledge the actual points I’m trying to make and instead insert the points you want.
I’ve never said that gay couples produce better outcomes than heterosexuals. I’m saying that in group A you have a bunch of gays. In group B you ALSO HAVE A GROUP OF GAYS. Group A are married gays. Group B are living in sin (heh).
My point is that the study shows that Group A is likely to have stronger outcomes.
It’s Gay versus Gay! Not Gay versus Hetero.
Since you say that we can apply the study to Asians, I suspect that we actually agree only you seem to be unable to believe that I’m saying these things. For some reason you insist that my argument is gay vs. hetero when it isn’t. Maybe I’m a terrible communicator. Maybe you just like to argue. I don’t know. And at this point I don’t care.
Not the argument I’m making.
I’m happy to argue the points I’m stating, but I’m not interested in a long drawn out discussion of arguments you foist upon me. I’m pretty sure I’ve been on the marriage issue and not the gay versus straight issue. In fact, my foray into this discussion makes that very point:
I’m not picking anything. It is my understanding that the authors did not exclude gay families from the study. Therefore the study is as valid for gay families as it is for Asian families. That’s the point I’m trying to make. If you want to poke holes at the study and say that “No, it shouldn’t apply to gays because…” then you are welcome to do so, but the study does not exclude gay families.
If you exclude gay families because they didn’t report on the number of gays in the study or that you think whatever number there are was too small then what about everyone else? What about everyone else not in the study?
The point of such a study is to draw conclusions about people not in the study.
To be more accurate I should have said, ‘there is no possibility of proof the data points you want in the Normal Distribution you are interested in themselves also form a Normal Distribution you are interested in.’
I know, but it is incredibly important to statistical analysis that there are enough samples and the samples are truly random. Since gay marriage is outlawed in many states this will skew the data, not even to mention the sampler’s bias.
If Asians had to go through different hoops than the average American to get married your analogy would be fair.
Fine. I get that people want to treat gay families differently. Obviously the authors do not and did not which I think is a good thing, but I’m done beating this particular dead horse. I’ll leave this thread with the following mental exercise.
Given Group A consisting of families headed by legally married same-sex parents and
Group B consisting of families headed by unmarried same-sex parents:
In light of the study, which of groups A and B is more likely to enjoy positive outcomes?
I say the study indicates that group A is more likely to enjoy positive outcomes.
Perhaps you disagree with the study and the fact that the study did not exclude same-sex families, but that is a different argument entirely.
Okay, let me try here. Presuming you folks are still parsing the same study as began this excursus – and I confess to a touch of MEGO on it – what is being said is:
There are studies which demonstrate that same-sex couples are as good parents, on the average, as opposite-sex ones – in fact, one study suggests that on average they skew better. The relevant study here is not one of them.
Not because it demonstrates a contrary result – it doesn’t. But because by the definitions used – “married” means specifically legally married under the laws of the couple’s state of residency – the universe and sample sizes, and the study dates, it is improbable – though not impossible – that the study included even one same-sex marriage. As Bricker has spelled out in [del]nitpicky[/del] meticulous detail.
To put it more bluntly, it’s a horrible study to use in making any assertion about same-sex couples and their children, from social and mental health and adjustment of the children to whether they like pecan pie.
Which, IMO, makes it par for the course in the “cooked” statistics chicanery typical of the Flimflam on the Family coterie of organizations.
OK, so if I asked “Hey, I have some friends who are starting a family. Would it be better for their kids if they officially married, or if they didn’t?”, you could reasonably point to this study and say “It’d probably be better if they officially married”, right?
If I then said “Oh, and by the way, these folks happen to be Asian”, would you turn around and say “Oh, in that case, I have no idea if it’d be better if they married, since the study didn’t do a breakdown by race”? Would you also give that same response if I had said they were African, or Native American, or European? I submit that such a response would not be justified: If you respond that marriage would be advantageous, when you don’t know their race, and given that the study didn’t address race, you should also continue to say that marriage would be advantageous, even after you learn their race.
And the same goes for sexual orientation. If you say that my friends ought to marry, and I then tell you that they’re gay, should you change your conclusion to not knowing whether they should marry?
You think heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage and therefore falls under ‘marriage’ in any context, and I agree with you, but that is irrelevant to the fact this data set is skewed.
Consider- Are children better off with married couples in California?
Would your data be conclusive if your sample included California and Mississippi?
Thank you. Of course, the moment we bring data from other studies into play, it becomes pretty obvious that this study’s conclusions are not inconsistent with the expected outcome that same-sex married couples produce better results than unmarried same-sex couples.
But this study, by itself, informs on the question not at all.
Actualy, what you should say is something close to ‘I have no idea.’
If your only source of information is this study, then what you can say is, “For the average nuclear family, marriage produces better results for children, but if you’re asking me if it’s particularly true or untrue for Asians/Africans/Native Americans, this study doesn’t address that.”
And that’s in response to a general question. If you were attacking the proposition that married Asian couples supply better outcomes for children than unmarried Asian couples, this study gives no useful information at all.
Look, this is simple statistics, taught at the college sophomore level.