quote:Originally posted by Annie: If you have any more disparaging remarks about my academic qualifications, please keep them to yourself. You don't know me. I'm not writing a research paper for you.
I wold like to say, that I did not mean for any of my comments to be insulting. That said, I do believe that I was right in saying that you need to cite your sources. If you do not have the time or inclination to cite sources then do not bring them into the conversation, because people in this community will ask for them, and as the one who brought them up, it is on you to provide the information, rather than expecting others to go do the research.
Edit: Also a link to the French Parliamentary decision in French does me no good (and probably several others) as I do not speak French.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Wow, this just got really personal and nasty.
I do know how to cite sources. I read the entire 35-page report in French that the parliament issued. I have specific articles that have informed my opinion. I typically don't compose my Hatrack posts in APA format, however, and I'm noticing that none of you do either.
I used to enjoy having spirited discussions here with people who disagreed with me, but this is just nasty and intolerant and I'm done.
If you don't feel like debating with others then you have the option of debating solely with me, since the words of others have no bearing on what I intend to address, nor do they affect the manner by which I have been debating.
You have made a claim to factual science and you have made a claim that you posses all the capacity required of one to process and evidence these claims. The onus is on you to give substance to these claims, as right now they only exist in an unsubstantiated form. You might as well be citing claims from NARTH or religious front groups, so I have no choice but to give no credibility to factual claims that come without fact.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: If you have any more disparaging remarks about my academic qualifications, please keep them to yourself. You don't know me. I'm not writing a research paper for you.
You are correct I don't know you. Which is exactly why a statement which was essentially "I'm a grad student in this so I should know" does not impress me. I don't know you. I've never met you or (as far as I know) anyone else here on hatrack personally. Therefore, I have no way of knowing if you are a grad student or not, where you go to school, what you are studying or how you do in school. You could be a student with a 4.0 at an Ivy League school or someone who's not actually a student at all.
That's not to say that you are lying, you may well be a grad student in this field of study and an expert in all things parenting, but I can't take that just on your word, which is why I asked for citations. Citations in a language that I can read would be even better. Citations that are not the French government (which could easily choose to use studies that only conform to their opinion, since I can't read the document I have no way of knowing) would be best.
If you choose to stay gone from this conversation that is up to you. I would hope, that as a scholar who states that she has references, you would be willing to post them. You don't have to find a link. Give us names of journals and the article names and journal numbers. People who are interested will go look them up themselves.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "fact" I gave was in French. The report I linked to included a review of the scientific literature they used to justify their decision. I cited that decision because it's one that's very similar to mine, it's one I've spent a long time studying and from which I draw many of my opinions, and I have not conducted a thorough study of my own. It's not in English - I'm sorry, that's all I have access to right now.
Here is a summary of the French government's decision in English. It's not totally thorough, but it provides other links. It's from a pro-traditional marriage group in Canada, so I suppose you will scoff at it as well. But it does provide a very good list of studies showing that having a parent of each gender matters for a child's well-being.
Is that a good start? Can I now discuss my opinions on equal footing here with others who give their opinions without a thorough scientific bibliography each time?
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Some people have been less than polite to you, or perhaps even downright hostile, but it's you choice to leave the conversation when others have not been.
(Note, I include myself in the first group, but not the second. I was not polite, but I was also not what I would call hostile.
Then you and I have very different definitions of hostility. And I'm not just talking about this conversation; I have recently (past month, I think) noticed an increasing level of hostility, condescension, and a general lack of the consideration I had come to expect from you. I wasn't going to say anything, but if you're going to bring it up . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Andi, this is maybe one of the most compelling English sources I could find during a quick search, and it cites the studies upon which the American College of Pediatricians based its decisions not to endorse homosexual parenting.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: [QB] Here is a summary of the French government's decision in English. It's not totally thorough, but it provides other links. It's from a pro-traditional marriage group in Canada, so I suppose you will scoff at it as well. But it does provide a very good list of studies showing that having a parent of each gender matters for a child's well-being.
Is that a good start? Can I now discuss my opinions on equal footing here with others who give their opinions without a thorough scientific bibliography each time?
The citations primarily come from IMAPP. As far as I can see, they don't actually manage to back up the assertion and the fundamental premise that the primary source stands on, and are reliant on many cases of gross naturalistic fallacy. If they do otherwise you would have to show me specifically the scientific evidence that supplants these claims, not a link to the end statements of others who profess the same. You might as well link me to your own posts.
But you're jumping ahead of my earlier questions, re: socioeconomic placement, prohibiting poor parents from receiving fertility treatments even if they are in a male/female married pairing, etc. Let's deal with those first.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Andi, this is maybe one of the most compelling English sources I could find during a quick search, and it cites the studies upon which the American College of Pediatricians based its decisions not to endorse homosexual parenting.
I will agree that the article here is the most compelling. Although I have started looking at the articles in your previous links, I must admit that I am put off by them. First, they are coming from a website that opposes same-sex marriage, which means that they are likely only going to have articles that support their view point. Second, at least one of the articles is from NARTH, who's organization seems to be questionable at best. Unlike the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Counseling organization, NARTH believes that homosexuality is something that can be "cured," and according to their position statements found here they seem to be claiming that homosexuality likely stems from early sexual molestation (although they are careful to state that there isn't really enough data to support that claim at this time). All of this calls into question the validity of their arguments in my mind.
With regard to your link above from the American College of Pediatricians (which appears to be fairly conservative.) I would like to counter with a link of my own to the American Academy of Pediatricians, which supports gay marriage here and this article from the American Psychological Association, which states that there is no empirical data showing that Lesbian and Gay parents are not fit.
Edit: added a close parentheses which I missed.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The American College of Pediatricians does not do research. They're an ideological group formed by a handful of people (under ten) who left the AAP when the AAP refused to take a stance that homosexual parents are categorically bad for children. Since then they've received funding essentially to make a very legitimate looking website that religious organizations (primarily the National Catholic Register) can cite when they make statements like 'spanking is superior to not spanking' or 'same-sex couples are damaging to children's mental health'
They don't really do research, like the AAP and the APA. They just exist as an ideological front. They are also miniscule with $69,000 in membership dues and assessments in 2007. The extent of their activities are promotion of their website as a source, and writing conclusive statements about cherrypicked data.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, I'm glad you've decided to remain in the conversation.
Jhai, you have a history of listening to and taking constructive criticism well (or at least I've observed that)--so I hope it will be taken as constructive when I say that your early response to Annie (you know the one, I'm sure) did come across as awfully hostile to me--and I am very far from agreeing with Annie. So take that for what it's worth.
This is going back to something on the previous page--I disagree that Belle was being critical of large families. I think she was very careful to phrase her concerns as just that--concerns. I have concerns about kids who are raised in households where both parents work, particularly when they work long hours. This doesn't mean *anything* about what I think should or should not be done legislatively or culturally or within a single household. (I should hope not, considering I am raising a child in a household where both of us work!) But I've seen enough lonely, neglected kids whose parents are hardworking and affluent that I hope that every family considers the impact their career choices have on their children.
Just like I hope that parents and potential parents who want a large family consider the impact that will have on their children. (I'm concerned about the impact being an only child will have on my son if we choose not to have more kids. It's a real concern. Not a criticism.)
I think an even more telling difference between large families of 100+ years ago and large families of today is the cultural expectations of parents and views of what childhood (and adolescence) are and should be.
Posts: 834 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry you thought that the ACP stance was unconvincing. I thought the data they cited (you call it cherry-picked) was legitimate and compelling.
There's bias inherent in every researcher's motives. What you call cherry-picking I call finding research to support their claims. Researchers with an agenda to prove that gay parenting was just fine do the same thing when they make their arguments. Rejecting anything backed by NARTH would be, in my opinion, the same type of attitude that you call cherry-picking.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Some people have been less than polite to you, or perhaps even downright hostile, but it's you choice to leave the conversation when others have not been.
(Note, I include myself in the first group, but not the second. I was not polite, but I was also not what I would call hostile.
Then you and I have very different definitions of hostility. And I'm not just talking about this conversation; I have recently (past month, I think) noticed an increasing level of hostility, condescension, and a general lack of the consideration I had come to expect from you. I wasn't going to say anything, but if you're going to bring it up . . .
I suspect that you and I have different definitions of hostility. You might have noticed more of what you term hostility because I have recently been participating in threads which are more given to direct conflict of ideas.
I don't see a point in refraining from calling a duck a duck. Annie, as she presented herself here, is not what I would call a good graduate student in the social sciences. She's not presented the minimum I would expect from a senior high school student headed to college either. Perhaps I have different standards than other people, but the students I've worked with have lived up to mine.
Either way, I thank you and LizB for your comments. I'll take them into consideration in the future, but I do hope that others will in turn take into consideration the fact that blunt speaking is not necessarily hostility - hostility requires, at the very least, ill-will, and I feel none towards Annie. I will admit that I was not polite, but I tend to not value politeness near as much as many other people I know (both here and IRL).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, they are coming from a website that opposes same-sex marriage, which means that they are likely only going to have articles that support their view point.
Whereas, if you were making an argument here that same-sex marriage was a good idea, you would only cite articles that support your viewpoint.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are confusing two different posts. I did not refer to anything as cherry-picking. Likewise, I never said that I would not believe anything that NARTH supported, however, their opinions are not supported by many other well respected organizations, and some of their core beliefs are questionable at best. That is going to call into question the validity of their research, with me, and I'm sure with many members of the academic community.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, they are coming from a website that opposes same-sex marriage, which means that they are likely only going to have articles that support their view point.
Whereas, if you were making an argument here that same-sex marriage was a good idea, you would only cite articles that support your viewpoint.
Yes, but I am an individual with an opinion, not a group claiming unbiased scholastic research. Likewise, I have read their arguments, and provided reasons why I don't agree with them.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see a point in refraining from calling a duck a duck. Annie, as she presented herself here, is not what I would call a good graduate student in the social sciences. She's not presented the minimum I would expect from a senior high school student headed to college either.
And you made this evaluation based on having read two or three posts I made on a casual internet forum. I do not "present myself here" with all of my professional credentials, and neither does anyone else.
I am a very intelligent person, I am a good scholar, I am striving to learn more. I wrote a literature review in educational technology that is being published in a journal right now. It was offensive to me for you to so harshly criticize me with absolutely no knowledge of who I am or the kind of work I do. That was hostile. The fact that you made it a personal attack made it hostile.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are confusing two different posts. I did not refer to anything as cherry-picking. Likewise, I never said that I would not believe anything that NARTH supported, however, their opinions are not supported by many other well respected organizations, and some of their core beliefs are questionable at best. That is going to call into question the validity of their research, with me, and I'm sure with many members of the academic community.
I was talking to Samprimary. Sorry - I'll try to reference who I'm answering.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm sorry you thought that the ACP stance was unconvincing. I thought the data they cited (you call it cherry-picked) was legitimate and compelling.
Why? What data are you presenting? Which research? You're not delivering citations to anything other than advocacy groups.
More importantly, the groups you are delivering us to are ones that have distinct and deliberate bias. You say that there's "bias inherent in every researcher's motives," but this is far away from making an equivalency argument for the level of bias versus the levels of empirical fairness between all research and all groups.
You are delivering us only advocacy groups that we could say we could safely ignore due to preconclusive bias and evident ideological intent.
quote:Rejecting anything backed by NARTH would be, in my opinion, the same type of attitude that you call cherry-picking.
Why would you say that? As I haven't told you anything about my analysis of NARTH, you have no grounds under which to determine that it is a case of cherrypicking.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the number of children (newborns) has anything to do with the reaction of people to her irresponsibility. The only thing is that people likely wouldn't have found out about it if it were only twins. The irresponsibility is still the same. A single mother of six (one of them Autistic, two others developmentally delayed) who undergoes IVF to have another baby is the problem.
Unfortunately, the fact that there are EIGHT babies does complicate things. It makes it even less likely that all the children will be able to thrive. It means that they were born premature and will have additional health problems. It means that even if they are taken from the mother and put in a foster or adoptive situation in will be abusive because there is not fostering situation capable of taking 14 siblings, and separating siblings (especially twins or multiples) is cruel.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
More importantly, you are still jumping way ahead of my original contentions. I'll repost.
quote:you're jumping ahead of my earlier questions, re: socioeconomic placement, prohibiting poor parents from receiving fertility treatments even if they are in a male/female married pairing, etc. Let's deal with those first.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: You might have noticed more of what you term hostility because I have recently been participating in threads which are more given to direct conflict of ideas.
Maybe. But I really don't think that's it. I've certainly seen you participate in such threads for longer than the past month.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't see a point in refraining from calling a duck a duck.
I know. But there is a difference between bluntness and personal attacks. And that is the line I have noticed you crossing more and more of late. Say that you don't agree with Annie or her ideas -- that's fine. Why bring her teachers into it? Why make statements about her as a person?
I expect that sort of thing from KoM, not from you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? What data are you presenting? Which research? You're not delivering citations to anything other than advocacy groups.
Because I don't have a bibliography of everything I've ever read on the subject, I was referring you to easily-citable statements that did have bibilographies. So to answer your question of "what data are you presenting," I'll refer you to the data cited by the articles I quoted:
quote:ENDNOTES
1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.
2 Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.
3 P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.
4 J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.
5 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45
6 Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.
7 Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.
8 Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.
9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.
10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
11 D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
12 Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.
15 David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.
16 M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
17 M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
18 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
19 Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
20 A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.
21 "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.
22 Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]
23 J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
24 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.
25 Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."
26 Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244
27 R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
28 Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.
29 Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
30 Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.
31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129
33 Ibid., pp. 127, 128.
34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
36 D. Fergusson et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).
posted
I'm now going to respectfully bow out of the discussion. I have a lot of reading I'm supposed to get done by Friday and I don't have time to keep checking this thread. Thank you to those of you who were willing to debate respectfully with me.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I've spoke my piece on the matter. I don't see it as a personal attack - it's a reference to her scholarship and standing as an academic, maybe, but not her personhood.
Annie, I've not criticized your intelligence (edit: I would consider that a personal attack, since it's not something under your direct control). You may consider yourself a good scholar. And maybe by the requirements of your field, you are. But from what I've seen in this entire thread, I would not call you that, and I would not be pleased to see a student I've worked with presenting arguments like you have.
posted
You know, it is somewhat funny. The first cite on your list starts with
quote:Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.
posted
Anne, That's not a particularly impressive list.
I'll only take those articles that are actually about the children of same sex couples (edit: they are all supportive of gay parenting and adoption):
quote:1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.
This is not research. It's basically a policy statement of the AAP. It can be seen here. It is overwhelmingly in support of gay parenting. edit: some of the references at the bottom, however, are to research, which is also supportive of the non-intrinsically badness of gay parenting. /edit
---
quote:31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
Here's the abstract of that article:
quote:"A longitudinal study of 25 young adults from lesbian families and 21 raised by heterosexual single mothers revealed that those raised by lesbian mothers functioned well in adulthood in terms of psychological well-being and of family identity and relationships. The commonly held assumption that lesbian mothers will have lesbian daughters and gay sons was not supported by the findings."
---
quote:32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129
The abstract for that:
quote:The sexual development of children of gay and lesbian parents is interesting for both scientific and social reasons The present study is the largest to date to focus on the sexual orientation of adult sons of gay men. From advertisements in gay publications, 55 gay or bisexual men were recruited who reported on 82 sons at least 17 years of age. More than 90% of sons whose homosexual orientation could be rated were heterosexual. Furthermore, Gay and heterosexual sons did not differ on potentially relevant variables such as the length of time they had lived with their fathers. Results suggest that any environmental influence of gay fathers on their sons' sexual orientation is not large.
---
quote:34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
That abstract:
quote:A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. Examined whether parents' sexuality can influence the sexual orientation of their children. Subjects were 27 lesbian mothers with 39 children, and 27 heterosexual single mothers and their 39 children. Found that although children from lesbian families were more likely to explore same-sex relationships, the large majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified themselves as heterosexual.
---
quote:35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
The abstract:
quote:Whereas opponents of lesbian and gay parent rights claim that children with lesbigay parents are at higher risk for a variety of negative outcomes, most research in psychology concludes, somewhat defensively, that there are no differences at all in developmental outcomes between children raised by lesbigay and heterosexual parents. This paper challenges this defensive conceptual framework and analyzes the ways in which heterosexism has hampered intellectual progress in the field. We discuss limitations in the definitions, samples, and analyses of the studies to date. Next we explore findings from 21 studies and demonstrate that researchers frequently downplay findings of difference regarding, in particular, children's gender and sexual preferences and behavior that could instead stimulate important theoretical questions. We propose a less defensive, more sociologically-informed analytic framework for investigating these issues that focuses on 1) the role of parental gender vis a vis sexual orientation in influencing children's gender development; 2) the role of selection effects produced by homophobia that may intervene in the relationships between parental sexual orientations and child outcomes; and 3) the relationship between parental sexual orientations and children's sexual preferences and behaviors.
posted
Jahi, you're doing something very similar to what you're accusing Annie of. We have only your word for you credentials; why should we believe that you've taught graduate students, or know anything about research studies?
Why should your perception of the quality of Annie's scholarship bear any weight at all? Notice that other people were able to ask her for sources without touting their own credentials. You could have done that. There are many people on this forum with graduate degrees in various disciplines. Most of them manage not to mention their schooling in every serious thread they participate in.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Wow. I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any sort of science field.
quote:*shrug* I've spoke my piece on the matter. I don't see it as a personal attack - it's a reference to her scholarship and standing as an academic, maybe, but not her personhood.
Jhai. You are sufficiently trained in logic and reasoning to know an ad hominem attack when you see one and to know why this kind of argumentation is not only fallacious but counter productive. If that is typical of your intellectual honesty, I'd be embarrassed to admit to being your teacher in any field of ethics or reasoning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne, When/if you come back, could you explain why you think this list of research that seems to strongly support the idea of there being nothing intrinsically wrong with gay parenting supports the exact opposite claim?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, the only point I've made explicit my credentials was here:
quote: And I've taught graduate students in the social science (economics, too, which is about as statistically sound a social science as you can get), if you want to just randomly assert authority in a field.
which, as you may gather, is making the point that credentials don't matter that much at all. As far as teaching students or knowing anything about research studies - well, it's easy enough to see that the first is merely used as a point to make clear my opinion on the scholarship shown, and the second is an opinion. I'm not saying "I have a degree in such and such field, therefore I know a lot about research studies". I'm saying "I don't find your research studies good" by way of example. The only real place I can find where I've gone into specifics about research (beyond just opinion) is in this quote:
quote:I think it's possible to have a well-created study, but I personally wouldn't trust one until I read the actual article myself, and saw that the statistical analysis took care of confounding variables, that the instruments used were appropriate, that the data that was analyzed was gathered appropriately, etc, etc.
which, again, is little more than a statement about what I personally would need to see to find a study credible.
Rabbit, I believe we've had run-ins before on ethics and reasoning, and I don't remember forming a favorable impression of you in the subjects. And yes, I'm well aware of your credentials.
As I was not making an argument, but expressing an opinion, I don't see where ad hominem comes into the picture. As far as being productive, well, I've already mentioned I know (and knew) it wasn't polite.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, I believe we've had run-ins before on ethics and reasoning, and I don't remember forming a favorable impression of you in the subjects. And yes, I'm well aware of your credentials.
And I could say the same for you. But at least when I have the audacity to insult your rhetoric, I have the integrity to provide a clear example of your flawed reasoning.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just pointed out how it wasn't flawed reasoning, as I wasn't making an argument based on the comment. And, again, I'm just stating my opinion that I don't find your opinion on reasoning and ethics to be particularly meaningful to me. Do you back up all of your opinions with citations?
It wasn't meant as a "ooh, look everyone, Rabbit had bad reasoning skills and here's why" argument. It was a response to you more along the lines of: A. You said X about subject Y B. I have reason to doubt your opinion on all matters pertaining to subject Y. C. Implicit (You know point B) D. Therefore, I am not going to find your statement of X very credible, and you know why.
If you want some citation for point B, I can find one, but as it was a response to you, and you were part of the conversation (s?) where we had the disagreements, I'm not sure what the point it.
Edit: and, really, "audacity to insult your rhetoric"? It doesn't take any audacity to insult anyone. From your wording, I get the feeling that you think this is a Big, Important Argument we're having here, but from my side, it's, uh, really not.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, you've studied philosophy of language. What would you say is the illocutionary force of repeatedly comparing Annie to students you've taught, or to what you would expect to see from a student you were teaching?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no history with you, Jhai. But I see "I'd be ashamed to be your teacher" as a pointedly hurtful comment. You can criticize poor reasoning without that kind of insult.
Note that I do not think that Annie has done a good job of justifying her opinions. The following comment neatly illustrates the problem:
quote:There's bias inherent in every researcher's motives. What you call cherry-picking I call finding research to support their claims.
posted
I've actually not studied philosophy language in any formal sense, and I think you're talking about the subject of rhetoric, anyways.
The only reason I've ended up repeatedly comparing Annie to students I've taught (or, rather, my expectations for students I've taught) was in response to others who were, in turn, responding to the original comment. Frankly, I don't really care about Annie or her studies - it's not like I keep popping into the thread saying "you know what, everyone - Annie is a really bad graduate student!" All I'm doing is standing behind my original remark, which I continue to think is true.
scifibum, a statement is only as hurtful as you allow it to be. If it helps, it wasn't meant as a "hurtful comment", and I personally (and most of my friends IRL) wouldn't take it as such.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I'm now going to respectfully bow out of the discussion. I have a lot of reading I'm supposed to get done by Friday and I don't have time to keep checking this thread. Thank you to those of you who were willing to debate respectfully with me.
Annie, do I have any hope whatsoever that you have any intent to answer my questions, or should I move on and assume that my critique stands?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I do appreciate your remark, and as I've mentioned earlier, I will consider such remarks in the future. I already realized that I have a much, much thicker skin than the vast majority of people posting here, but the shocker is that apparently the vast majority of people I regularly associate with also have a much thicker skin than the denizens of Hatrack. I suppose the two populations aren't all that alike, though - for example, I can't think of one person I hang out with IRL who attends church.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, another explanation is that online communication strips much of the nuance from conversation. We can only imagine the tone of your voice.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no sources. It's either my own experience or things I've picked up in an undergrad history degree or stuff I've picked up from the world.
I think I've posted a long thing here before against the vast array of non one-female one-male 'parents' who have raised children in the past.
Prior to the decline of deaths in childbirth, mothers so often died in childbirth that children were often without a mother from a very early age. The reverse was also often true. Children grew up with caregivers of various kinds.
In the medieval era, young children were often raised in monasteries which were, of course, often all male or all female.
This aside from situations where younger children were mostly surrounded by female nursemaids and mother. Father was a face at evening dinners until children reached a certain age. What about cultures where the men were away for lengthy periods? Did anyone bemoan the families lacking fathers in the World Wars in this way? Did we get a generation of boys unable to relate to men?
The balanced male/female couple in which the father has equal influence is a modern construct. Given loving, caring people surrounding them children manage in all kinds of environments, provided they are stimulating and consistent.
You line adults up and try to divide them by their parents without knowing their actual status, you will end up with a mixed bag.
On the flip side, I think that being shipped between homes from a young age is often but not always detrimental. I think that children who spend a lot of time in crappy day care are getting shafted but this is equally the province of two-parent families as the single parent. Lots of single parents have other people around to help them out.
But then, some mothers and fathers are simply crappy parents, even if they spend time in the same room as their kid. Perhaps they have little experience. Perhaps they actively dislike being parents. Perhaps they approach it far too scientifically because it's the only way they know how. Perhaps the kid was a total mistake.
One thing you can say about gay and lesbian parents is that it's almost never a surprise.
I care more about the quality of the parenting rather than the form the parents take.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I've actually not studied philosophy language in any formal sense, and I think you're talking about the subject of rhetoric, anyways.
You're dodging the question. You have not, to my recollection, ever mentioned studying rhetoric, but you have mentioned philosophy of language. I believe that someone who has studied philosophy at the level you have implied should be aware of the concept of illocutionary force and able to answer my question.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not dodging the question - my answer was in the second paragraph. To be more explicit: whatever the illocutionary force of repeatedly discussing the issue, any discussion stemming from the original comment was made in response to others.
Suppose John Doe says, "Man, that was a dumb movie - I went to see it with my BIL, the movie director, and we both hated it," off-hand during a group conversation. Then the other people in the conversation repeatedly question this comment, and try to discredit it, and argue against it, etc, etc, and John defends his original remark as warranted. "No, I did really think it was a dumb movie, and so did my BIL." "Yes, I saw it with him and we talked afterwards and both thought it was dumb." "Yes, I know you liked it; nonetheless, he told me he found it bad..."
After an hour of such back-and-forth, would it reasonable to say, "Jeez, John, you shouldn't use the credentials of your BIL the movie director as an argument for how dumb the movie is! No, I know you weren't making an argument of how good the movie was based simply on your BIL's status as a movie director, but don't you know the illocutionary force of such a conversation?"?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait...the guy who directed the movie thought it was a dumb movie? That does not speak well for it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the BIL is just a movie director who watched some random (bad) movie not of his own making.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm not dodging the question - my answer was in the second paragraph. To be more explicit: whatever the illocutionary force of repeatedly discussing the issue . . .
That was not the question. The question was about repeatedly positioning yourself as the teacher and Annie as the student.
I have noticed the same changes as rivka in the last few months. I actually wondered if it were time to congratulate you on an academic milestone, because you're showing a lot of the classic signs of "new PhD syndrome." At any rate, it might be worth considering that the difference between the reactions you get here and among your real life friends might have less to do with relative skin thicknesses and more to do with whether you treat your friends as peers.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't positioning her as a student to my "teacher status". If it makes you feel better, whenever I was a student in discussion-based classrooms I had no difficulty in telling other students when they were showing poor reasoning or research skills either. That sort of attitude, was, in fact, encouraged by many of my professors - in my senior philosophy seminar, for instance, we were each assigned a peer's paper which we were expected to tear apart in the next class session.
Peers, if anything, get a worse treatment from me. They should know better.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this recent attitude was encouraged by your professors, then I'd be ashamed to be your teacher.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I've just pointed out how it wasn't flawed reasoning, as I wasn't making an argument based on the comment. And, again, I'm just stating my opinion that I don't find your opinion on reasoning and ethics to be particularly meaningful to me. Do you back up all of your opinions with citations?
