Same-sex Marriage.

[_Runtu]

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

And a more ludicrous hypothesis I cannot imagine.

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.

Wade, you can't be serious. Schumm is quite clear:

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.

Wade, can you cite even one study, anywhere, even anecdotally, that support the hypothesis that acceptance of homosexuality is "confounded" with acceptance of binge drinking? Springville, Utah, has a remarkably high rate of heroin use. Should we look into the hypothesis that acceptance of the LDS lifestyle may be confounded with acceptance of heroin use?

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?

If it's irrelevant to Schumm's data and his review of the Columbia study, then it's irrelevant to the Columbia study itself. At least we agree on that.

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

In that case, we can hypothesize all kinds of things, if we don't need to base our hypotheses on anything other than, "Hmmm. What if ...?"

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.

The problem is, again, we have plenty of data regarding social stigma and health and welfare of many groups, including gays. Last I checked, having parents encourage binge drinking wasn't one of the problems facing gay teens.

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.

OK, that made me laugh. Thanks, Wade.

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

Do you agree that he's a vocal and active opponent of same-sex behavior and marriage, or not?

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.

You're right. You didn't quote the study, but I was merely showing that Schumm's poor data collection and analysis are part of a larger pattern. For the record, you can find the Schumm study here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642872

But don't take my word for it. Here's Dr. Schumm himself on how he collected his data:

First, I reviewed ten books concerning over 250 children of gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents and evaluated the children's own stories about their sexual orientations. I used a 10% baseline for a simulated comparison group of heterosexual families. It was clear that the children of GLB parents were more likely to either have identified as GLB or to have at least experimented with nonheterosexual behavior. The more I controlled for age (using older children) and availability of data (using only those children who specifically described their sexual orientations), the stronger the results became. Gender was an interesting and strong factor in that the daughters of lesbian mothers were most likely to reject a heterosexual orientation whereas sons of gay fathers were least likely to do so.

As I mentioned previously, this is about the worst possible way to gather data and reflects serious incompetence on Schumm's part. In short, with Schumm we have a man who does not know how to collect and analyze data and also thinks it's reasonable to make hypotheses based on no data whatsoever. To quote Schumm, "I am not sure that's how science is normally done."

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."

I didn't sweepingly dismiss your sources. I examined them and explained why they are poor sources. And Dr. Schumm has himself identified with "anti-gay" academics who he says are being unfairly excluded from scientific journals.

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.

I've explained how your sources incorrectly use data, which is what I set out to do. You have not shown that I misinterpreted the data.

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.

This isn't about you, Wade. When "scientists" misuse data to further an agenda, we should oppose them.

[Gadianton]

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.

You are conflating a couple of things. First, there is my intent in quoting briefly from the review. As indicated, it was simply to note an element of interest. The omission wasn't relevant to that element of interest, and so there was no pragmatic reason for me to include it. Nothing sinister in that.

Second, the "re-created" data set wasn't critical to Schumms technical concerns. His first techincal concern was that the data in figure 1 of the Columbia study, didn't match what was claimed in the narrative of the study. Another of his concerns was that the N's used in the study were not reported. Still another concern was that the data in figure 1 was "reported as statistically insignificant," but was used to call for significant policy changes. A fourth technical problem he had was that the data in figure one didn't provide the actual count, particularly specified precisely for homosexual youth. Finally, he made the point that "A discussion of the advantages of using generalized estimating equations rather than hierarchical linear modeling would also have been useful for readers less familiar with the former."

Each and everyone of these technical concerns were based on what the Columbia study, itself, reported, and didn't rely on "re-created" data.

And, all the "re-created" data was used for was to for Schumm to determine for himself the effective size of overall community environment. He found that it was very small. This comports with what was reported in the study, itself--i.e. the effect was statistically insignificant.

So, not only wasn't the omission on my part not relevant to my intents, the inclusion of the statement on "re-created" in the review wasn't all that important to all of Schumm's technical concerns, and so there was not pragmatic reason for me to have included it.

You are the only one making a big deal about i here, and it is puzzling as to why?

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.

To my mind, positing a hypothesis for future research doesn't a critique make. But, you are free to see it differently.

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.

Speaking for myself, and as the ultimate expert in what and why I quoted the critique of the Columbia study, it wasn't for the reason you insinuate, but for the reasons I have consistently indicated.

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.

If stigmatizing reduces substance abuse, which in turn reduces the risk of suicides, you don't view that as a positive?

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.

The hypothesis simply calls for a re-examination of the previous studies in a different light and researching different angles. This is how science works. You may believe that all the thinking and research has been done and the issue, but I believe we have barely scratched the surface. To each their own.

With all this having been said, I don't see how my source has been reasonably called into question, particularly not for the purpose to which I used it. All I am seeing so far is you elevating, well beyond the bounds of reasonableness, the word "re-created," and confusing an exploratory hypothesis with a critique, and bundling this all up as sweeping condemnation of my source as misusing data or dishonest.

Now, if you have some reasonable criticisms of my source, I will be happy to consider them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Chap]

I look in on this thread just to see how long Runtu's patience lasts.

But just out of interest, I'd like to know: is anybody actually reading Wade Englund's posts, apart from Runtu? So far as I can see there is nobody here but Wade and his volunteer therapist.

[_Bazooka]

I look in on this thread just to see how long Runtu's patience lasts.

But just out of interest, I'd like to know: is anybody actually reading Wade Englund's posts, apart from Runtu? So far as I can see there is nobody here but Wade and his volunteer therapist.

*Chap puts his ear to the screen and listens carefully for a response.......<crickets>*

[_wenglund]

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

And a more ludicrous hypothesis I cannot imagine.

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.

Wade, you can't be serious. Schumm is quite clear:

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.

Wade, can you cite even one study, anywhere, even anecdotally, that support the hypothesis that acceptance of homosexuality is "confounded" with acceptance of binge drinking? Springville, Utah, has a remarkably high rate of heroin use. Should we look into the hypothesis that acceptance of the LDS lifestyle may be confounded with acceptance of heroin use?

I can't cite studies that have yet to be done, but which are being considered in the future.

Clearly, I have a different way of interpreting Schumm's hypothesis than you. If I am correct, as surmised above, then it makes sense to me. If you are correct, then admittedly I am somewhat "confounded."

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.

The problem is, again, we have plenty of data regarding social stigma and health and welfare of many groups, including gays. Last I checked, having parents encourage binge drinking wasn't one of the problems facing gay teens.

What you see as a problem, I view as the progression of science. And, how you see the problem, isn't how I see it.

Even so, none of what you have said gives valid reason to reject my source, particularly not for the reason I cited it, nor to consider it as dishonest.

Do you agree that he's a vocal and active opponent of same-sex behavior and marriage, or not?

I can't reasonably render that judgment based solely on what I have read in the linked article (which is all that I recall having read of him). In fact, I get no indication from the article of opposition to same-sex behavior. Nor, would I necessarily consider opposition to same-sex behavior as "anti-gay." Such is often used, like "homophobe," as bully words employed as a cheap rhetorical tricks to dismiss differing points of view.

Many here recoil similarly to the phrase "anti-Mormon," which is why I tend not to use it.

And, whether Schumm is or he isn't a vocal and active opponent of same-sex behavior, is of no relevance to the validity of his cited critique, or the value of his hypothesis, or my limited use of his critique and hypothesis. Nor is it in any reasonable sense indicative of whether he is honest in his critique.

This isn't about you, Wade. When "scientists" misuse data to further an agenda, we should oppose them.

I agree whole-heartedly. But, let's not confuse "misuse" and "dishonest" with "difference of opinion" or "honest mistakes."

There is a principle in critical thought called "compassionate reconstruction." It is where, in the interest of fairness and better understanding, the party doing the critique makes every attempt to fill gaps and re-assemble the interlocutor's argument in a way that makes the most sense, and acts as if that is what was intended, realizing that more often than not, the critic will usually get right the intended meaning of the argument than were the critic to critique dis-compassionately.

I have made a concerted attempt to employ this with my own sources, and when examining those of my opponents.

In other words, I believe all parties are better served by first assuming the best of opposing arguments, until adequately demonstrated otherwise, rather than looking for the worst--and this because the worst is what one tends find if they are looking for it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

In other words, I believe all parties are better served by first assuming the best of opposing arguments, until adequately demonstrated otherwise, rather than looking for the worst--and this because the worst is what one tends find if they are looking for it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I assume the best of others, but I have learned never to take conclusions from statistics at face value. When I looked at the stuff you were citing, there were obvious problems apparent immediately; on further investigation, the problems were worse than I had expected.

You seem to believe that I have an agenda to discredit those who oppose same-sex marriage. That is not the case, but I will point out poor and dishonest pseudo-scholarship whenever I see it, and despite your quibbles with my assessment, I stand by my judgment: the FRC piece was undermined by the very statistics it was misusing. This Schumm guy, who was unknown to me until today, not only did not counter anything in the study he ostensibly responded to, but came up with some of the most bizarre speculations about the relationship between gay teens and binge drinking that I have ever heard.

It's not my fault that these sources have turned out to go nowhere fast.

[_Runtu]

I look in on this thread just to see how long Runtu's patience lasts.

But just out of interest, I'd like to know: is anybody actually reading Wade Englund's posts, apart from Runtu? So far as I can see there is nobody here but Wade and his volunteer therapist.

Probably no one but me. Wade asked for a discussion of the data he provided, and I've given it. I have no interest in commenting on Wade personally, but I've given ample evidence that the sources he has cited are seriously problematic.

[Anonymous]

I look in on this thread just to see how long Runtu's patience lasts.

But just out of interest, I'd like to know: is anybody actually reading Wade Englund's posts, apart from Runtu? So far as I can see there is nobody here but Wade and his volunteer therapist.

Probably no one but me. Wade asked for a discussion of the data he provided, and I've given it. I have no interest in commenting on Wade personally, but I've given ample evidence that the sources he has cited are seriously problematic.

You've been fighting the good fight here, Runtu, no doubt.

But I can't read through it. For the life of me, I can not believe that Wade could be completely ignorant of the cruel consequences and horrific scope of vicious human behavior legitimated by the "ideas" he touts.

[_Runtu]

You've been fighting the good fight here, Runtu, no doubt.

But I can't read through it. For the life of me, I can not believe that Wade could be completely ignorant of the cruel consequences and horrific scope of vicious human behavior legitimated by the "ideas" he touts.

All you need to know is that one of his experts has "hypothesized" that increasing stigma against gay teens will increase a sense of responsibility among all youths and that compassionate attitudes towards gay youths have increased teen binge drinking.

What else is there to say?

[_Blixa]

You've been fighting the good fight here, Runtu, no doubt.

But I can't read through it. For the life of me, I can not believe that Wade could be completely ignorant of the cruel consequences and horrific scope of vicious human behavior legitimated by the "ideas" he touts.

All you need to know is that one of his experts has "hypothesized" that increasing stigma against gay teens will increase a sense of responsibility among all youths and that compassionate attitudes towards gay youths have increased teen binge drinking.

What else is there to say?

Well this:

It's not just that such ideas are grounded in bad pseudo-research or emanate from a historical vacuum: a flat and one-dimensional understanding of humanity. They actively promote evil, plain and simple.