Ireland recovering from Theocracy.

[Adrift]

Adrift,

It's a fairly well-known phenomena that gay children will come out of the closet sooner if they feel they are in a supportive environment. Also, obviously, kids will think about their own sexual orientation earlier in life if someone close to them is gay. For these reasons any gay children of same-sex parents are likely to come out at a younger age on average than the children of opposite sex parents. This tends to yield false-positives in studies that try to determine if the children of same-sex parents are more likely to be gay. Because if the study asks all the kids at age 18 if they are gay or not (or asks their parents), their numbers will be skewed as a result of a lot of the kids still being in the closet. What you ideally would want to know is how many are actually gay, not how many tell you they're gay. But that's not something you can really test for - short of coming back decades later and hoping for truthful answers at that point.

If you can't actually test for the idea that many children of non-gay parents are, in fact, closeted, then why are you so confident in your theory? Who told you this theory?

The general finding has been that the children of gay parents do not seem more likely to actually be gay - if the question is asked much later in their lives then there appear to be no differences between the two groups. However the gay children of gay parents definitely admit to being gay at a younger age, on average, which is hardly surprising. For this reason most studies of same-sex parenting done these days tend to no longer bother to ask such questions of the children or their parents because it's known that the answers given are false data.

Can you cite the research you're thinking of that offers these conclusions (that children of gay parents grow out of saying they're gay at a later age, and that most studies no longer ask children of gay parents if they are gay)?

[Starlight]

If you can't actually test for the idea that many children of non-gay parents are, in fact, closeted, then why are you so confident in your theory?

They come out later in life. So asking them later in life they can tell the researcher that they are gay and what age they came out at. It's thus possible to observe a trend that gay children of heterosexual parents tend to come out at a later age than the gay children of gay parents.

Can you cite the research you're thinking of that offers these conclusions (that children of gay parents grow out of saying they're gay at a later age, and that most studies no longer ask children of gay parents if they are gay)?

You appear to have misunderstood the first sentence of my second paragraph, which upon rereading it I can see was a bit ambiguous. I was absolutely not saying that "children of gay parents grow out of saying they're gay at a later age".

I was saying that people who are gay are slower to admit it to themselves and others if they are in an unsupportive environment. Hence any gay children being raised by gay parents are likely to come out sooner than gay children being raised by straight parents. So, while (we can presume) the vast majority of gay people will have come out as gay by the age of 70 or so, at the age of 18 only some of them will have come out as gay. The ones that will have come out at a younger age will mostly have been those who were in environments where they felt more comfortable coming out. Offhand I can't remember where I read the discussion of this.

[Paprika]

I didn't exactly say that. We found an instance where 15 studies had used a single underlying data source (albeit one that developed over time).

Allow me to quote you on this point:

I am, however, slightly taken aback by the comment that 15 studies have been published on what is essentially the same data set (albeit it has evolved slightly over time as the children have aged). Obviously those 15 are not independent of each other, and should be considered a single longitudinal study.

I quite agree with you that the numbers have been inflated.

So if those 15 studies were counted as one, I guess that would leave "more than 86". That's still a rather high number.

How many times must I repeat that quantity is not quality?

While that is true, part of what makes them experts is their ability to analyze those studies better than you or I, due to having more knowledge of their own field and of the pros and cons of different methodologies...

Experts having better analytical skills with regards to the subject does not imply that all their arguments are correct, not least when ideological biases are very strong and the perennial pitfall of groupthink.

So if the experts all agree, that tells you pretty much all you need to know about how decisive and utterly overwhelming the evidence is.

If they do, and they do not (eg. Regnerus), and you have not shown any evidence that "the experts all agree". Of course, I'm now expecting a "no true credible expert"; please don't disappoint.

Individual scientific studies aren't themselves a particularly compelling source of proof. If there is a second study that found exactly the opposite, then that would entirely undermine the first one.

Indeed, quantity of studies is essential to support a conclusion. But as above, quantity does not imply quality; numbers alone is not the only relevant factor.

The review articles in the field on the topic will be better than anything I can write. You should read those if you want to know more. The argument is not that the experts generally agree, it's that the experts appear to universally agree, and there's a world of difference between those two things. Decent evidence pointing overall in one direction will cause general expert agreement in any given scientific field.

I've read a review article by Loren Marks. The abstract goes:

In 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued an official brief on Lesbian and Gay Parenting. This brief included the assertion: “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (p. 15). The present article closely examines this assertion and 59 published studies cited by APA to support it. Seven central questions address: (1) homogenous sampling, (2) absence of comparison groups, (3) comparison group characteristics, (4) contradictory data, (5) the limited scope of children’s outcomes studied, (6) paucity of long-term outcome data, and (7) lack of APA-urged statistical power. The conclusion is that strong assertions, including those made by the APA, were not empirically warranted. Recommendations for future research are offered.

Multiple scientific organisations testifying that there is no disagreement is another kettle of fish entirely, and indicates absolutely crushing evidence.

Or the completely evident massive progressive ideological bias.

Your fundamental driving force for all this seems to be your utterly unproven conviction

The driving force hardly matters, though I thank you for taking the trouble to address it. My objections and criticism are logically independent of the driving force or conviction, so I see no need to address it in this space, not least because it avoids the pitfall of the genetic fallacy.

[Mountain Man]

...we have sufficient empirical evidence showing that children of same-sex couples are developmentally similar to children of opposite-sex couples.

"Sufficient" here means "the studies tell me what I want to hear".

But it's ultimately irrelevant. Let's say for the sake of argument that every study you cite in favor of homosexuality is 100% airtight and proves beyond dispute that homosexuals and children raised by homosexuals are no better or worse off than the average heterosexual. This doesn't change the fact that God has unambiguously declared homosexuality to be a sin in the harshest of terms. For that matter, I'm sure there are studies showing that people who remarry after a divorce are just as happy as couples who never divorced, or people who had sex before marriage are just as happy and committed as people who were virgins until their wedding night, but the fact remains that divorce and extramarital sex are still a sin. Isn't that, in and of itself, sufficient reason for Christians to stand opposed to homosexual marriage?

Your constant running to sociological studies to defend something that the Bible explicitly condemns brings to mind Paul's warning in Colossians:

"Don't let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ."

[Cow Poke]

"Sufficient" here means "the studies tell me what I want to hear".

That's why I was pickin' on Sam for that -- if it truly was "sufficient", we wouldn't still be arguing this. (Then, again, this is Tweb )

[Adrift]

Let's say for the sake of argument that every study you cite in favor of homosexuality is 100% airtight and proves beyond dispute that homosexuals and children raised by homosexuals are no better or worse off than the average heterosexual. This doesn't change the fact that God has unambiguously declared homosexuality to be a sin in the harshest of terms. For that matter, I'm sure there are studies showing that people who remarry after a divorce are just as happy as couples who never divorced, or people who had sex before marriage are just as happy and committed as people who were virgins until their wedding night, but the fact remains that divorce and extramarital sex are still a sin. Isn't that, in and of itself, sufficient reason for Christians to stand opposed to homosexual marriage?

This is one of the points I was attempting to make in posts #183, #185, #187. Maybe I was a bit too subtle.

[Mountain Man]

And I'll add that if Sam persists in his belief that the Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality (even though it explicitly does), or that God meant only to condemn homosexuality outside of a committed monogamous homosexual relationship (despite the fact that no such distinction is even hinted at in scripture), then he needs to seriously reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith.

[Adrift]

And I'll add that if Sam persists in his belief that the Bible really doesn't condemn homosexuality (even though it explicitly does), or that God meant only to condemn homosexuality outside of a committed monogamous homosexual relationship (despite the fact that no such distinction is even hinted at in scripture), then he needs to seriously reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith.

I think it's possible for someone to be completely wrong about this issue, and still retain a foundational belief in Christ.

I think where reevaluation might come in handy is figuring out the source of conflict between one's own personal opinions on the subject and the consensus interpretation of scripture. I mean, I can see the conflict being born out of ignorance, a fringe interpretation of scripture, or just reluctance to let go of our own personal moral rule, rather than trust God's moral rule--to trust that he knows what he's saying/doing. There are lots of things that, as a Christian, I wish God was okay with, but I made a choice a long time ago that I would stop kicking against the pricks, and simply put my trust in him (and maybe that's the reevaluation you're talking about). Our secular environment is sooo sympathetic to others, no matter how taboo or non-normative the behavior or cause is anymore, and it's because of Christianity's role in history. I don't think the bleeding heart liberal stereotype could exit in a world without Christ's teachings. However, when you attempt to take away the spiritual, and big picture message of Christ, and squeeze out all of the God in it, there's nothing left. The heart is in the right place, but it's not backed by truth. It's sad.

[Sam]

This is one of the points I was attempting to make in posts #183, #185, #187. Maybe I was a bit too subtle.

You weren't too subtle, don't worry; while we disagreed on the merits of divorcing secular law from religious law, we at least understood the other's position. Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered. I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state. And I believe history is clear that we don't really want it to be (think: Saudi Arabia, Salem, etc.)

[Adrift]

You weren't too subtle, don't worry; while we disagreed on the merits of divorcing secular law from religious law, we at least understood the other's position. Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered. I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state. And I believe history is clear that we don't really want it to be (think: Saudi Arabia, Salem, etc.)

Understood.

[seer]

You weren't too subtle, don't worry; while we disagreed on the merits of divorcing secular law from religious law, we at least understood the other's position. Mountain Man has, once again, simply skipped that part, instead asking a question that's already been answered. I tried to state pretty explicitly that religious law, unless it strongly correlates to a secular "harm done" ethic, is not sufficient when enacting laws in a pluralistic, secular state. And I believe history is clear that we don't really want it to be (think: Saudi Arabia, Salem, etc.)

How for instance do you/we know what kind of harm the redefinition of marriage will cause down the road? It is obvious that the sexual revolution, when it comes to stable intact families, and STDs, has been harmful. Never mind the millions of unborn children killed in the womb. So this arbitrary standard of harm is meaningless or unknowable. But the question is Sam - why do you as a Christian support gay marriage? It certainly is not a Biblical model - or are you just following popular opinion? That your support is simply based on the accidental timing and place of your birth?

[Mountain Man]

I think it's possible for someone to be completely wrong about this issue, and still retain a foundational belief in Christ.

I think where reevaluation might come in handy is figuring out the source of conflict between one's own personal opinions on the subject and the consensus interpretation of scripture. I mean, I can see the conflict being born out of ignorance, a fringe interpretation of scripture, or just reluctance to let go of our own personal moral rule, rather than trust God's moral rule--to trust that he knows what he's saying/doing. There are lots of things that, as a Christian, I wish God was okay with, but I made a choice a long time ago that I would stop kicking against the pricks, and simply put my trust in him (and maybe that's the reevaluation you're talking about). Our secular environment is sooo sympathetic to others, no matter how taboo or non-normative the behavior or cause is anymore, and it's because of Christianity's role in history. I don't think the bleeding heart liberal stereotype could exit in a world without Christ's teachings. However, when you attempt to take away the spiritual, and big picture message of Christ, and squeeze out all of the God in it, there's nothing left. The heart is in the right place, but it's not backed by truth. It's sad.

The foundation of Christianity is God's word as revealed in the Bible, so when someone maintains a belief that is clearly contrary to scripture then I think it is right and proper to encourage them to reexamine the foundation of their Christian faith. Sam claims that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, God really didn't mean all instances of homosexuality despite such nuance being completely absent from scripture (not to mention thousands of years of Jewish tradition and teaching). This is blasphemy as far as I'm concerned, and once you've started down that road, how easy it would be to go from "Surely God wouldn't condemn a committed, monogamous homosexual couple" to "Surely God wouldn't condemn someone just because he has honest doubts about the resurrection of Jesus". This is why I encourage Sam to reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith. Either he's going to accept what the Bible says, or he's not, and if he's not then he needs to stop calling himself a Christian. It's as simple as that.

[seer]

The foundation of Christianity is God's word as revealed in the Bible, so when someone maintains a belief that is clearly contrary to scripture then I think it is right and proper to encourage them to reexamine the foundation of their Christian faith. Sam claims that when the Bible condemns homosexuality, God really didn't mean all instances of homosexuality despite such nuance being completely absent from scripture (not to mention thousands of years of Jewish tradition and teaching). This is blasphemy as far as I'm concerned, and once you've started down that road, how easy it would be to go from "Surely God wouldn't condemn a committed, monogamous homosexual couple" to "Surely God wouldn't condemn someone just because he has honest doubts about the resurrection of Jesus". This is why I encourage Sam to reevaluate the foundation of his Christian faith. Either he's going to accept what the Bible says, or he's not, and if he's not then he needs to stop calling himself a Christian. It's as simple as that.

The bottom line is that most liberal Christians I have met are their own little gods. They know better.

[Sam]

How for instance do you/we know what kind of harm the redefinition of marriage will cause down the road? It is obvious that the sexual revolution, when it comes to stable intact families, and STDs, has been harmful. Never mind the millions of unborn children killed in the womb. So this arbitrary standard of harm is meaningless or unknowable. But the question is Sam - why do you as a Christian support gay marriage? It certainly is not a Biblical model - or are you just following popular opinion? That your support is simply based on the accidental timing and place of your birth?

We've been through this discussion numerous times and I have no particular patience to do so again here and now. In any event, it detracts from a discussion I've been finding worthwhile regarding empirical studies of development for children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents. Since I'm hoping to clear my desk at some point before hitting the road again for the weekend, I'm going to refrain from a fruitless discussion in hopes of preserving the meaningful one.

[seer]

We've been through this discussion numerous times and I have no particular patience to do so again here and now. In any event, it detracts from a discussion I've been finding worthwhile regarding empirical studies of development for children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents. Since I'm hoping to clear my desk at some point before hitting the road again for the weekend, I'm going to refrain from a fruitless discussion in hopes of preserving the meaningful one.

Just so it is clear - your, or the secular, standard of harm is meaningless, arbitrary and quite possibly unknowable.