Same-sex Marriage.

[_Runtu]

In short, so far I have reviewed the following sources:

1. Vermont statistics cited as proving gays do not want to marry. The conclusion was based on bogus use of statistics.
2. Swedish statistics cited to prove that gays do not want to marry. Also bogus.
3. Dutch study showing that gays don't tend to marry. Also bogus.
4. Comparison of hate crimes against gays and African Americans to show that gays are less likely to be attacked but more likely to commit suicide. Also bogus.
5. Response to a study showing that gay youths are less likely to commit suicide if there are certain social, educational, and family structures present. The response attempting to discredit the study was based on unwarranted assumptions and an unverifiable "recreation" of the original dataset. So, once again, bogus.

I really don't want to have to do this with every "study" you cite, Wade, but you're 5 for 5 to this point, so I'd be rather foolish to assume that the rest of your citations are solid.

[Gadianton]

Wade,

Here's the issue for me: I checked out 3 sources used by the FRC to show that gay couples are less-committed and less likely to enter into civil unions or marriages than heterosexuals are. The FRC cited official Vermont and US statistics to show that gay couples in Vermont were less likely to marry than their heterosexual counterparts. Unfortunately, an examination of the numbers showed the opposite was true. It wasn't the state of Vermont or the US Census Bureau that made mistakes, but rather it was the FRC who dishonestly skewed the statistics.

I am grateful that you took the time to check my sources, and I am happy to make correction where appropriate.

However, let's keep in mind that the FRC citation was but one citation used to support the clause regarding homosexual relationships: "and about the same percentage [28%] have entered into longterm relationships lasting more than 7 years," and it was only one of seven citations to support the clause: "fewer still (a measly 6%) legalize those relationships where possible." It was not used to support the clause, "as compared with about 95 percent of heterosexuals who have married," though it was the one citation used to support the clause, "with more than 70 percent of those [heterosexual] marriages lasting longer than 10 years."

So, for my purposes, the FRC article was used to confirm that 28% of gay relationships last more than 7 years, and fewer still legalized those relationships (according to FRC, 21% entered into civil unions, whereas my figure was 6%), and 70% of heterosexual relationships lasted more than 10 years.

This means that even if you are correct that the statistics cited in the FRC article proved the opposite conclusion than what the article, itself, claimed (in other words, according to you, the statistics demonstrated that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to marry or enter into legalized relationships), it isn't relevant to the specific purposes for which I cited the article.

That having been said, let's look at what the article claims and have you show that the Vermont statistics used in the article demonstrate that homosexuals are more likely to enter legalized relationships than heterosexuals, rather than the opposite as claimed by the article.

Here is what the article says:

n April 2000, the governor of the state of Vermont signed a law instituting civil unions for homosexuals. The bill conferred 300 privileges and rights enjoyed by married couples upon same-sex partners who register their relationship with the town clerk and have their union solemnized by a member of the clergy or the justice of the peace.

Estimating the homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont: The number of homosexuals and lesbians in the state of Vermont may be estimated based on national studies. Contrary to the widely promulgated but inaccurate claims that up to ten percent of the population is homosexual, research indicates that homosexuals comprise one to three percent of the population. For example, a recent study in Demography relying upon three large data sets--the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. Census--estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population to be 2.5 percent and the number of exclusive lesbians to be 1.4 percent.[21]

According to the 2000 Census, the adult population of Vermont is 461,304.[22] Based on the Demography study, a reasonable estimate of the number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont would be approximately 5,600 (2.5 percent of the adult male population) for male homosexuals, and approximately 3,300 (1.4 percent of the adult female population) for lesbians, for a total of approximately 8,900 homosexuals and lesbians. [Note: these are only rough approximations for purposes of statistical comparison.]

Number of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont who have entered into civil unions: USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.

By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.[24]

I look forward to your astute analysis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I look forward to your astute analysis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did that 5 days ago.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31268

[_wenglund]

All right, let's deal with this citation. This is not a study but a response (similar to a letter to the editor) to the Hatzenbuehler study.

Actually, it was, itself, a peer review in a scholarly journal.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/5/896/reply#content-block

What you conveniently omitted was this: "When I re-created the data set as best I could ..." So, Dr. Schumm is not working with the original dataset but with his own approximation, and since it's an informal response, we have no way of checking the validity of Schumm's data. On the other hand, Hatzenbuehler's study was peer-reviewed and used the original dataset. So, again, we have no way to validate Schumm's work.

It wasn't so much a "convenient omission" as it was a pragmatic omission of things not directly relevant to the specific point I intended to make. My purpose wasn't to reproduce or completely review the article in my brief post, but instead to note an element of interest.

However, speaking of "convenient omissions," here is what follows the ellipse you inserted in the quote above: "(there was about a 9% loss of data for community variables and the actual N's used in Figure 1 were not reported)."

So, while Schumm actually was working with the same data set, the set was not entirely complete because of loss and lack of reporting. He was scholarly reviewing the study in the only way that any peer could review it at the time.

And, we have the same way of checking the validity of Schumm's data as we have now in checking the validity of Hatzenbuehler's data.

But we can get a clue from something he writes earlier in the response:

Russell [3: 1253] reported how one GLB youth answered the question "What do you know about sexual minority youth?" by saying "We have all the fun!". Russell noted that "This statement beautifully illustrates the resilience that characterizes the lives of most sexual minority youth" [3: 1253]. It may also illustrate advantages of same-sex sexual orientation that may elicit jealousy, competition, or envy from heterosexual students, who may not care about sexual orientation per se but may resent its relative advantages in terms of variety or frequency of sexual contacts.

So, from one youth's answer, Schumm extrapolates that gay youths recognize they have advantages over their straight friends (who are probably jealous).

Not exactly. In the same paragraph, and the sentence immediately before the sentence you quoted, Schumm also cited two other research articles. It was in the context of all three research papers that Schumm proffered his hypothesis. (See more on this below)

Furthermore, it should be recognized that at the point in which the quote in question appeared in Schumm review, he wasn't critiquing the Columbia study, but rather as he explicitly noted, "There are other issues that merit further research." In other words, Schumm's hypothesis wasn't intended as a critique, but to prompt further scientific query.

So, I am not sure how this hypothesis somehow provides a clue in testing the validity of Schumm's "recreation" of the data? Could you explain?

Each session begins with the question, "What do you know about sexual minority youth?" With only one exception, the first answer has always been, "They are at risk for suicide."

So, in 5 years, every gay kid, except one, when asked that question mentioned suicide. But the one who didn't is held up as evidence that, far from being at risk, gay kids are fun-loving and carefree, perhaps even more so than straight kids.

Again, not exactly. First of all, Russell's co-authored article (see HERE) doesn't specify over how many years the question was asked. Second, the question was posed at "workshops on sexual minority youth." Third, Russell used the statement of the one youth to illustrate what Russell had surmised from working with and familiarizing himself with sexual minority youth. Fourth, Russell used the quote to illustrate the "resilience that characterize most sexual minority youth" who don't experience suicidality. Fifth, Shumm used Russell's comments, alone with two other research papers, as well as his own experience in the field, to formulate an hypothesis of his own, with the intent of testing and researching it in the future.

Here, as well, I am not sure how Schumm's hypothesis (even given your evident misunderstanding) somehow provides a clue in testing the validity of Schumm's "recreation" of the data, let alone draws into question his criticism of the Columbia study? Could you explain?

I will address the second half of your review of the review in my next post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I look forward to your astute analysis.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did that 5 days ago.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31268

Great. I will look it over, and if I have question about it, I will address theme here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I am grateful that you took the time to check my sources, and I am happy to make correction where appropriate.

Let me just say that I may have been wrong earlier in suggesting possible reasons why you have been using bad data. My default assumption is that you are a trusting individual and therefore accept the data presented by your fellow opponents of same-sex marriage without much evaluation. My problem isn't with you, Wade, but with the deceptive use of data that is apparently being done regularly and deliberately by the people you are citing.

However, let's keep in mind that the FRC citation was but one citation used to support the clause regarding homosexual relationships, "and about the same percentage [28%] have entered into longterm relationships lasting more than 7 years," and it was only one of seven citations to support the clause: "fewer still (a measly 6%) legalize those relationships where possible." It was not used to support the clause, "as compared with about 95 percent of heterosexuals who have married," though it was the one citation used to support the clause, "with more than 70 percent of those [heterosexual] marriages lasting longer than 10 years."

Again, this is an invalid comparison. Look at it this way: heterosexuals face no social or legal barriers to getting married, and once married, they face significant barriers to dissolving their marriages. Thus, getting married is easy, and splitting up is harder than getting married. For same-sex couples, it is the opposite: there are significant social and legal barriers to entering into committed relationships, and there are very few barriers to splitting up. Thus, it's hard to get "married" and easy to split up.

So, a valid comparison would be between single, heterosexual couples and their single, gay counterparts. What percentage of relationships between unmarried heterosexuals last longer than 7 years? I would bet it's a far smaller number than 28%, but that's just a guess. But the FRC is, again, performing an unwarranted and unfair comparison to make it seem as if gay people don't want committed relationships.

So, for my purposes, the FRC article was used to confirm that 28% of gay relationships last more than 7 years, and fewer still legalized those relationships (according to FRC, 21% entered into civil unions,

Again, not a fair comparison.

whereas my figure was 6%), and 70% of heterosexual relationships lasted more than 10 years.

No, that's not what your figure shows. 70% of heterosexual marriages last more than 10 years. If you can show that more than 28% of unmarried heterosexual relationships last more than 10 years, you'll be on to something.

This means that even if you are correct that the statistics cited in the FRC article proved the opposite conclusion than what the article, itself, claimed (in other words, according to you, the statistics demonstrated that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to marry or enter into legalized relationships), it isn't relevant to the specific purposes for which I cited the article.

And yet again, your statistics don't support your conclusion. So, you're 6 for 6 now.

[_wenglund]

The criticism mentioned above does touch on what to me appears to be a more compelling explanation for the increase and disproportionate rate of homosexual suicides: "However, the higher rates reported in this article for binge drinking among GLB students may suggest, among GLB students, lower levels of child/adolescent self-control, a factor for which higher levels have been found to predict better adult health, socioeconomic, and public safety outcomes in a longitudinal study from of children from age 3 to later adult age at 32 [4]. In some communities, acceptance of GLB identity may seem confounded with acceptance of binge drinking, drug abuse, or lower levels of self- control, making stigma against GLB youth seem to be a constructive way of promoting more mature levels of self-control among all youth, regardless of sexual orientation. (See HERE)

I saw that. Here Schumm tries to associate higher levels of binge-drinking among gay kids with "lower levels of child/adolescent self-control" that have nothing to do with being gay. Why make this association? No reason, as there's nothing in the data suggesting such a correlation, and there is a well-known correlation between social acceptance and binge-drinking.

Please keep in mind that at this point in the article, Schumm is merely proffering an hypothesis for future study.

As I read it, Schumm is using binge drinking as a marker for substance abuse in general, and alcohol abuse in particular. Given that there are reputable studies showing that homosexual teens are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to engage in substance/alchohol abuse (see for example HERE and HERE and HERE), and given that substance/alcohol abuse is a risk factor for suicides in general (see HERE and HERE), and homosexual suicides in particular (see for example HERE), it seem reasonable to me that in conjunction with reviewing a study on homosexual suicide and environmental factors, Schumm would think to query about substance/alcohol abuse and hypothesize about possible explanations for the disproportionate occurrence of substance/alcohol abuse among homosexual teens.

If so, I don't see how such hypothesizing for future research somehow calls into question the validity of Schumms data or his review of the Columbia study. Again, could you explain?

But confident that it's so, Schumm says:

In some communities, acceptance of GLB identity may seem confounded with acceptance of binge drinking, drug abuse, or lower levels of self- control, making stigma against GLB youth seem to be a constructive way of promoting more mature levels of self-control among all youth, regardless of sexual orientation.

So, because accepting gay kids is the same as accepting binge-drinking (again, he offers not even the tiniest sliver of support for that idea), stigmatizing homosexuality is actually a "constructive way of promoting more mature levels of self-control among all youth." Dear God, what a mess, and this is the guy Wade is giving us as an expert."

He doesn't provide even a "sliver of support" in this case because he is simply hypothesizing, with the intent of encouraging future studies.

And, rather than it being a "mess," as you suppose, his hypothesis is actually highly intelligent. He is hinting at the potential value of social stigmas to the health and welfare of gay teens. He is astutely initiating exploration into other plausible explanations for why homosexual social challenges have increased at the same time that social acceptance of homosexuality has increased.

So, please, let's not dismiss out of hand the hypothesis before anyone has a chance to test and research it. That wouldn't be scientific.

But there's more. The response carries the following disclaimer from the editors of Pediatrics: "Conflict of Interest: Walter Schumm served as an expert witness for the state of Florida in a same-sex parent adoption trial in 2008." In other words, Schumm is not a disinterested scientist but an anti-gay activist.

That is certainly one highly propagandistic way of mis-characterizing the disclaimer.

Here's one example of Schumm's "work": Schumm's study showing that gay parents are more likely to have gay kids was based on ten statistical samples. And what where these samples? Ten mass-market, popular and nonscholarly books interviewing parents of gay children. Yes, that's right. The man who criticized the Hatzenbuehler study for using too small of a sample got his "sample" by simply reading some mass-market books and figuring out how many of the gay parents had kids who grew up gay.

Here's where Schumm got his "sample":

◾Abigail Garner’s Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is
◾Andrew Gotlieb’s Sons Talk About Their Gay Fathers: Life Curves
◾Noelle Howey and Ellen Samuels’ Out of the Ordinary: Essays on Growing Up with Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Parents
◾Maureen Asten’s Lesbian Family Relationships in American Society: The Making of an Ethnographic Film
◾Mary Boenke’s Trans Forming Families: Real Stories About Transgendered Loved Ones
◾Jane Drucker’s Families Of Value: Gay and Lesbian Parents and their Children Speak Out
◾Peggy Gillespie’s Love Makes a Family: Portraits of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Parents and Their Families
◾Louise Rafkin’s Different Mothers: Sons and Daughters of Lesbians Talk About Their Lives
◾Myra Hauschild and Pat Rosier’s Get Used to It!: Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents
◾And Lisa Saffron’s What About the Children: Sons and Daughters of Lesbian and Gay Parents Talk About Their Lives

Come on, Wade. If we're going to have a reasonable and reasoned discussion of these issues, you need to provide real data from reputable sources.

First of all, I didn't quote the study you just alluded to--BTW, you alluded to it without providing a link to the study so that your claims about it could be tested. You did.

Second, If you are going to be reasonable in return, then you need to assess the data I actually linked to, and assess the data on its own merits, and not trott out studies I didn't quote, or sweepingly dismiss my sources, particularly not with baseless accusations of "anti-gay."

And, third, you need to correctly grasp why, specifically, I am citing certain sources, and correctly grasp what the sourced are actually saying--things with which you have thus far demonstrated no small challenge.

Once again, let me stress that I value people reasonably testing my sources, and where it appears that I was wrong in how I used the source, or the source was wrong in connection with how I used it, I am happy to make corrections.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

I am amazed by Runtu's patience.

But Runtu, in Wade Englund you are dealing with someone who you can never persuade that they might be mistaken, with nothing better to do than come back with variations on the same theme for ever and ever ... and ever ...

[_Runtu]

Actually, it was, itself, a peer review in a scholarly journal.

It was an informal response, with no claim of peer review, hence the disclaimer.

It wasn't so much a "convenient omission" as it was a pragmatic omission of things not directly relevant to the specific point I intended to make.

I don't see what is pragmatic about omitting his admission that he "re-created" the data set. That is a huge problem because it means he can't duplicate the data and thus cannot validate or invalidate the original data and conclusions.

My purpose wasn't to reproduce or completely review the article in my brief post, but instead to note an element of interest.

Then why ellipse out the part that calls his statistics into question?

However, speaking of "convenient omissions," here is what follows the ellipse you inserted in the quote above: "(there was about a 9% loss of data for community variables and the actual N's used in Figure 1 were not reported)."

I inserted no ellipses, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You are the one who inserted the ellipses, but I don't know what that has to do with me, unless you're saying that it was convenient for me that you inserted ellipses to omit the quote about 9% loss.

So, while Schumm actually was working with the same data set, the set was not entirely complete because of loss and lack of reporting. He was scholarly reviewing the study in the only way that any peer could review it at the time.

Generally speaking, a scholarly reviewer asks for the original dataset. That Schumm apparently did not and instead chose to "re-create" the dataset indicates that this is not what one would call a "scholarly review."

And, we have the same way of checking the validity of Schumm's data as we have now in checking the validity of Hatzenbuehler's data.

The problem is that Hatzenbuehler's data were peer-reviewed, whereas Schumm's was not. But of course we could easily check the validity by asking the two for their respective datasets. I'm puzzled as to why Schumm didn't do this.

Not exactly. In the same paragraph, and the sentence immediately before the sentence you quoted, Schumm also cited two other research articles. It was in the context of all three research papers that Schumm proffered his hypothesis. (See more on this below)

The two earlier studies, if we can trust Schumm, indicate that gay kids start having sex earlier and at a higher rate (though what exactly that means isn't immediately clear), and then he gives the quote from the single youth. What is the correlation between the statistics and the kid's statement? Beats me. What do you think he's trying to say in that "context"?

Furthermore, it should be recognized that at the point in which the quote in question appeared in Schumm review, he wasn't critiquing the Columbia study, but rather as he explicitly noted, "There are other issues that merit further research." In other words, Schumm's hypothesis wasn't intended as a critique, but to prompt further scientific query.

Of course it was a critique. Hatzenbuehler's study notes the correlation of binge drinking and gay kids, making the obvious, logical, and statistically established conclusion that social and familial rejection tends to put kids at risk for such behaviors. Schumm is suggesting--without any evidence, mind you--that binge drinking is high among gay kids because their families are "confounding" tolerance of binge drinking with tolerance of their gay kids. That "hypothesis" doesn't even make any sense. But, never mind, further research is needed to make sure parents of gay kids aren't encouraging binge drinking.

So, I am not sure how this hypothesis somehow provides a clue in testing the validity of Schumm's "recreation" of the data? Could you explain?

If it's just a "hypothesis," then it's irrelevant to Hatzebuehler's study, no matter how obviously ludicrous it is. You are the one who cited Schumm as casting doubt on Hatzenbuehler's study, so he must have seen his point about binge drinking as somehow contradicting the study, but I'll agree with you and concede that his point is silly and irrelevant.

Again, not exactly. First of all, Russell's co-authored article (see HERE) doesn't specify over how many years the question was asked.

You cited the wrong article, Wade. The one Schumm cited is this one:

http://www.multi-cultural.org/LGBT/SAMH ... k_2003.pdf

In this paper, Russell says it was posed over 5 years to youth and youth professionals. Either way, only one person in 5 years gave an answer other than "gay kids are more likely to be at risk of suicide."

Second, the question was posed at "workshops on sexual minority youth."

Your point being?

Third, Russell used the statement of the one youth to illustrate what Russell had surmised from working with and familiarizing himself with sexual minority youth. Fourth, Russell used the quote to illustrate the "resilience that characterize most sexual minority youth" who don't experience suicidality.

If you read the right paper, you would have known that Russell was suggesting that, despite the overwhelming suicide risk, kids can be remarkably resilient, and we ought to look for positive ways to help them. Stigmatizing homosexuality (Schumm's solution) can hardly be considered positive.

Fifth, Shumm used Russell's comments, alone with two other research papers, as well as his own experience in the field, to formulate an hypothesis of his own, with the intent of testing and researching it in the future.

Except Schumm's "hypothesis" is that "stigma against GLB youth [may] be a constructive way of promoting more mature levels of self-control among all youth, regardless of sexual orientation." The problem here is that we already know from multiple studies that suicide rates are much higher in communities and families that stigmatize homosexuality. Rejecting all the previous studies is not a hypothesis. Never mind that Schumm's hypothesis is predicated on another, unfounded hypothesis, that parents of gay kids are encouraging and enabling binge drinking.

Here, as well, I am not sure how Schumm's hypothesis (even given your evident misunderstanding) somehow provides a clue in testing the validity of Schumm's "recreation" of the data, let alone draws into question his criticism of the Columbia study? Could you explain?

See above.

I will address the second half of your review of the review in my next post.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I wait with bated breath.

[_wenglund]

Let me just say that I may have been wrong earlier in suggesting possible reasons why you have been using bad data. My default assumption is that you are a trusting individual and therefore accept the data presented by your fellow opponents of same-sex marriage without much evaluation. My problem isn't with you, Wade, but with the deceptive use of data that is apparently being done regularly and deliberately by the people you are citing.

I understand and appreciate this. However, I believe you are mistaken and overly rash in your assessment of my sources. And, I am in the process of painstakingly substantiating my belief by testing each of your claims (specific and general) about my sources.

However, let's keep in mind that the FRC citation was but one citation used to support the clause regarding homosexual relationships, "and about the same percentage [28%] have entered into longterm relationships lasting more than 7 years," and it was only one of seven citations to support the clause: "fewer still (a measly 6%) legalize those relationships where possible." It was not used to support the clause, "as compared with about 95 percent of heterosexuals who have married," though it was the one citation used to support the clause, "with more than 70 percent of those [heterosexual] marriages lasting longer than 10 years."

Again, this is an invalid comparison. Look at it this way: heterosexuals face no social or legal barriers to getting married, and once married, they face significant barriers to dissolving their marriages. Thus, getting married is easy, and splitting up is harder than getting married. For same-sex couples, it is the opposite: there are significant social and legal barriers to entering into committed relationships, and there are very few barriers to splitting up. Thus, it's hard to get "married" and easy to split up.

So, a valid comparison would be between single, heterosexual couples and their single, gay counterparts. What percentage of relationships between unmarried heterosexuals last longer than 7 years? I would bet it's a far smaller number than 28%, but that's just a guess. But the FRC is, again, performing an unwarranted and unfair comparison to make it seem as if gay people don't want committed relationships.

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the sources in this instance. They weren't intended to provide what you may think is a fair comparison, but rather they are to confirm the factual accuracy of each of my clauses in question. In other words, they speak to the question of whether there are relationship differences between homosexuals and heterosexual, and not to the question of why there may be those differences.

whereas my figure was 6%), and 70% of heterosexual relationships lasted more than 10 years.

No, that's not what your figure shows. 70% of heterosexual marriages last more than 10 years. If you can show that more than 28% of unmarried heterosexual relationships last more than 10 years, you'll be on to something.

Fortunately, in my article I use the word "marriage" rather than "relationship," and so in terms of the article, and my use of the source there, you are incorrect.

This means that even if you are correct that the statistics cited in the FRC article proved the opposite conclusion than what the article, itself, claimed (in other words, according to you, the statistics demonstrated that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to marry or enter into legalized relationships), it isn't relevant to the specific purposes for which I cited the article.

And yet again, your statistics don't support your conclusion. So, you're 6 for 6 now.

I don't know what conclusion you have in mind here, but, again, the documented statistics are only intended to support the particular clause to which they are attached. Thus far in this discussion, you have yet to demonstrate anything other than you misunderstood what the sources were specifically substantiating. So, you need to fire your score keeper. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-