So, we need more gay people to have kids...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

[Kadagar_AV]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, I think you misread if you take it as homosexuals being better parents. Given that, as the article say, they are generally more mature. The MAIN POINT would be that Taliban arguments about homosexuals being invalid as parents because of religious or arcane moral beliefs is, well, wrong.

[Fragony]

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

Secondly, I think you misread if you take it as homosexuals being better parents. Given that, as the article say, they are generally more mature. The MAIN POINT would be that Taliban arguments about homosexuals being invalid as parents because of religious or arcane moral beliefs is, well, wrong.

SF is right, at least I agree with him so he must be right, these numbers are pretty meaningless because there isn't a level playing field.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That wasn't the thrust of the English language piece. I admit to getting only 10-15% of the Swedish version, so I can't comment there.

As to equal levels/values:

It is a hallmark of laboratory research that, in order to make a claim of causality, the research design must eliminate other possible sources that explain the observed differences in the dependent variable under examination so as to isolate the independent variable as the source of said differences. This ideal is rarely perfectly achieved, but does stand as the model for research. Correlational data can point out independent variables that MAY prove to have causal implications, but of itself can only assert that certain variables correlate with one another and that there is some relationship between them. That relationship may or may not be directly causal.

If the sexuality of the parents is irrelevant to the psychological health and development of a child, that would tend to support your position. Prima facie, that would seem to be the case given these results. Certainly in issue worthy of further study.

"religious or arcane" moral beliefs?

Did you mean "archaic" as in out-dated or old-fashioned? "Arcane" refers to something that is magical, mysterious, or requires some kind of secret knowledge. Public morality can't be any of those.

[TinCow]

First of all, the unequal levels is very much part of the equation, wouldn't you say?

It's part of the equation to the extent that the argument is that homosexuals can be good parents. It is not part of the equation to the extent that it is used as proof that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals. To make the latter conclusion, it is necessary to compare families where the only difference is sexual orientation. The proper heterosexual comparison family would be something like a pair of early-30s professionals who adopt or use IVF, instead of conceiving naturally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's part of the equation to the extent that the argument is that homosexuals can be good parents. It is not part of the equation to the extent that it is used as proof that homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals. To make the latter conclusion, it is necessary to compare families where the only difference is sexual orientation. The proper heterosexual comparison family would be something like a pair of early-30s professionals who adopt or use IVF, instead of conceiving naturally.

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

[Fragony]

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

At least award me a silver for saying exactly the same

[Kadagar_AV]

Gold star. Someone was paying attention in research methods.

I agree, fully.

Test is clearly not "fair" as the playing field is not fair. I might, however, stress one point. And this is an important one! It is not fair, because... think about it... Gay people need to do a logical decision and as well work towards getting children, whereas heterosexuals can dumbfundle in the backseat and get the same result.

As you see, the playing field is not equal, nor will it ever be. So to disregard this research because of it, seems rather unfair.

I can of course agree that the inequality diminishes the results somewhat, however, please do remember that you weight this against the Redneck/Taliban idea of "them gays should not have kids".

Against that argument, this research should have some sort of value, no?

So again, an absolute GOLD STAR for noticing that the research is not that easy to use in a comparative way. However, looking at the larger picture at hand, I hope you will concede that this research at the very much ripped the Talibans of their claim?

Or am I being silly here?

PS: Archaic, not arcane... Thanks for correcting me, tricky business this language thing :(

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I agree, fully.

Test is clearly not "fair" as the playing field is not fair. I might, however, stress one point. And this is an important one! It is not fair, because... think about it... Gay people need to do a logical decision and as well work towards getting children, whereas heterosexuals can dumbfundle in the backseat and get the same result.

As you see, the playing field is not equal, nor will it ever be. So to disregard this research because of it, seems rather unfair.(

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

[Kadagar_AV]

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

I agree, that is why atheism should spread more, so we get more people taking responsibility.

Or were you one of those Christians holding on to that silly belief that christianity has a somewhat good impact on sexual morals? I am just joking of course, I am sure you are an educated man and well read up (you are aware of, say, teenage pregnancy rates among Christians compared to atheists?).

But maybe we should leave religion out of this, to not turn it into a flame fest.



So what was your point, to make it clear, mate?

You want us all to live in celibacy until marriage, and gays not to have kids, unless they marry (which they should not be allowed to do? Kind of a catch 22 you got going for you there. Or?)

Anyway, you might want to elaborate on your point, I am afraid I didn't quite get your views on homosexuality and children.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your point only holds up in a promiscuous society, because if two people determine to remain celebate until marriage they are as unlikely to concieve by accident as a homosexual couple.

So I could take your research and declare that it proves our lax sexual morality is hurting our children; which we all knew anyway.

You couldn't prove that either. People tend to over-ascribe explanative power to survey instruments and correlational studies. They are useful tools but have their limitations. It is feasible to pound in a nail with a shovel -- but you're much more likely to screw it up instead. Try a hammer. Each tool has its place in the kit.

Kad:

It does NOT automatically mean that the archaic or strict moralist positions are wrong (though I believe they are). It does SUGGEST that such positions, on this issue, aren't accurate and sets up the basis for a study that COULD give you the proof you seek. TinCow is very much correct about the kind of setup that would be needed to make that claim.

Frags:

Didn't see your post. I'm disinclined to award stars or balloons simply because someone agrees with me (unless you also thereby DISagree with Banquo or CA -- I'll give you a star just for tweaking them a touch....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Can't say for sure without looking at the research report itself, but this appears to be correlational data. If so, it can make little or no assessments of the causility for the results, only spotlight issues for further investigation.

Are significant differences reported between lesbian couples raising a child and heterosexual couples raising a child when all other factors are at/near equal levels? From the snippets in these news pieces, it is impossible to say.

But is that at all what the research is about? I didn't think anyone was trying to show that homosexuals are inherently better parents by virtue of being homosexual. It seems like the correlation is what's important here--because the argument has been about not allowing them children. It doesn't matter if they are good parents for some reason unrelated to their sexuality, what matters is that they are good parents.