Same-sex Marriage.

[_wenglund]

A study from Columbia seems to support my anecdote-based guesses.

http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/researc ... -gay-youth

Yes, that is the study I was familiar with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

And the suicide rate among teens in the mountain west is the highest in the nation. Does this mean that being LDS is unhealthy for youth?

Good question. I suspect that if the region were comprised of only LDS, or even mostly LDS, then it may mean that.

Otherwise, one would need to look more closely at a variety of variables. For example, if suicides were disproportionately high among LDS (If I recall correctly, they aren't, and perhaps even to the contrary), then the LDS Church may be a factor of consideration.

I say "may" because there might also be other incidental factors at play--like the disproportionate number of women and Scandinavians (both groups are high risk for depression) in the Church.

Besides, religion is considered to be a support community that tends to lowers the risk of depression and suicide.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

"I also have some technical concerns with the article....The effect size overall for community environment appeared to be about 0.03, a very small effect, as Cohen [5] sets 0.20 or above as a small-size effect. Even among GLB youth, the effect size between community environment and suicide appeared to be on the order of 0.10 to 0.12, still far below Cohen's guidance for a small effect, as well as much lower than most of the other effects in the model. Even with a relatively large sample, the interaction effect portrayed in Figure 1 was reported as not significant statistically (page 899). It seems that such nonsignificance proved no barrier to the author reporting the results of the interaction in Figure 1 and then using Figure 1 to call for significant policy changes. I am not sure that's how science is normally done." (See HERE)

That's the problem surveying a small population: small sample size.

What I also find interesting is that hate crimes based on sexual orientation peaked in 2007 at 1,726 (See HERE and HERE and [url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/incidents-and-offenses]HERE[/url}), and while they have fluctuated ever since, the numbers are very similar to hate crimes against religions, and less than half of hate crimes based on race.

So, if hostile environments are a significant factor in suicides, one might expect suicides to be disproportionately higher among African-Americans than homosexuals. But it is not.

Wade, please stop promoting this kind of bogus "research."

The statistics you rely on for hate crimes are from 2007. It is correct that in raw numbers, there were twice as many hate crimes directed at African Americans (2658) than at gays and bisexuals (1243). But there's a huge problem here: the population of African Americans was 38 million, whereas the population of gays and bisexuals was, according to your FRC estimates, 9.6 million. So, African Americans are nearly six times less likely to be the victims of hate crimes than are gays and bisexuals, meaning that your source is, as is unfortunately all too common with sources you cite, distorting the real data for political purposes.

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)

Except that your study showed the opposite of what your source claimed it did. Please, Wade, if you want to discuss these issues, use reputable and honest sources.

[_Runtu]

Should it concern me that every time I check Wade's sources, I find a serious problem with methodology, usually involving a dishonest use of statistics to make an unwarranted assertion? It has to be pretty bad when an English major like me can spot the problems immediately.

Do these guys think no one is paying attention? I guess so.

[Gadianton]

Wade, please stop promoting this kind of bogus "research."

The statistics you rely on for hate crimes are from 2007.

Actually, I also included links to the FBI statistics from 2008 as well as 2011--the most recent statistics. And, the one link you might have clicked on contain statistics for each year from 1995 to 2007.

It is correct that in raw numbers, there were twice as many hate crimes directed at African Americans (2658) than at gays and bisexuals (1243). But there's a huge problem here: the population of African Americans was 38 million, whereas the population of gays and bisexuals was, according to your FRC estimates, 9.6 million. So, African Americans are nearly six times less likely to be the victims of hate crimes than are gays and bisexuals, meaning that your source is, as is unfortunately all too common with sources you cite, distorting the real data for political purposes.

While the FBI statistics I quoted don't look at per capita rates, they weren't intended to. They were designed to track the raw numbers by category.

Actually, I was the one who made the faulty extrapolation, and I appreciate you pointing out the flaw in my reasoning.

Except that your study showed the opposite of what your source claimed it did. Please, Wade, if you want to discuss these issues, use reputable and honest sources.

I think you may be conflating my sources and garbling things up. My first and fifth source, and the one you are unresponsively questioning here, was from the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It was a critique by a professor at Kansas State University, and it reviewed the Columbia Univ. study you cited. It was not a study, itself.

My second and fourth sources were the FBI, and my third source was a self-proclaimed "progressive" establishment called The Political Research Organization, which used statistics obtained from the FBI--I checked several of the PRO stats against what I found at the FBI, and they were accurately reported. These three sources were only used to provide hate crime statistics.

As such, I am not sure what exactly you are referring to when you say "your study," but the three FBI studies I quoted didn't speak to the issue of binge drinking. So, I am not sure how they somehow "showed the opposite" from what the KSU professor said in his critique, let alone why my sources wouldn't be considered honest and reputable. Please advise.

I can respect your demand that I use non-bogus research and reputable studies and facts and figures. However, I don't think demand is warranted as a sweeping dismissal of my sources and my points.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

Should it concern me that every time I check Wade's sources, I find a serious problem with methodology, usually involving a dishonest use of statistics to make an unwarranted assertion? It has to be pretty bad when an English major like me can spot the problems immediately.

Do these guys think no one is paying attention? I guess so.

I am interested in seeing exactly where you found methodological problems and dishonesty in the Pediatrics Journal critique and the FBI studies I sourced.

At best, all you demonstrated in your last response was an honest mistake in extrapolating on my part, and honest conflating on your part.

Did you think I wouldn't be paying attention?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Regarding my SSM Leftist LUNC sources, it should be mentioned that I made a concerted effort to provide documentation from a variety of publication from across the political and social spectrum.

For example, the sources in my brief introduction to SSM Leftist LUNCS, included: the National Journal, New York Times, Pew Forum, and Gallup

In the next brief article on "Too Few," my sources included: National Institute of Health (NIH) for the Federal Government, FRC, redstates, renewamerica, Williams Institute, U.S. Census, and meninmarriage,

Next, in the article on "Spike in Social Ills," my sources included: Live Science, the U.K.'s Telegraph, The Gaurdian, Philadelphia.com, patch.com, fasttopten, brainierdispatch, Center for Disease Control (CDC), thebody, avp.org, nih.gov, BPHC, massresistence, natap.org, msmhealth, kingcounty.gov, aids.gov, science daily, bilerico, FRC, theallstate.org, toweroad.com, workers.org, Huffington Post, impact program, CARM.org, traditioninaction.org, conservapedia, traditionalvalues.org, narth, ape.org, goodmenproject, jsonline, the publicdiscourse.com, blogger.com, the stranger, mercatornet.com Wikipedia, NY Times, sfgate, nomblog, gaylesbiantimes, examiner.com.

The rest of my articles are similarly documented.

Does it really look like I have sought out un-reputible and dishonest and bogus sources?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Does it really look like I have sought out un-reputible and dishonest and bogus sources?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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. The second source was an official tally of civil unions from Sweden used to show that heterosexual Swedes were more likely to marry than were their gay counterparts; again, the statistics actually showed the opposite was true, and it was easy to show how the FRC had manufactured its own results. The third study, from the Netherlands, specifically excluded same-sex couples who were in a relationship, so instead of showing that gay people don't marry, it yielded the rather unsurprising result that single people who are not in relationships are unlikely to marry anytime soon.

Needless to say, it's clear that the FRC is not a trustworthy or reputable source but is rather an advocacy group willing to fabricate statistics to further its political goals.

What had me frustrated yesterday is that you made a claim that was obviously false in your post, namely, that African Americans are more likely to be victims of hate crimes than are gays. The numbers you used to back up this assertion came from US government statistics, which should be reliable. Unfortunately, how the statistics were used is what matters. The numbers you cited were obviously misleading, and, even if I hadn't found the real numbers, anyone paying attention would have known that comparing raw numbers of hate crimes between groups is irrelevant. I have degrees in the humanities and social sciences, not statistics or mathematics, and yet the distortion was obvious to me. It would be like saying that, because only about 60 people die annually in Nauru, moving to Nauru would make you less likely to die than if you stayed in the US.

Does that mean I can make a sweeping dismissal of the statistics you use? No, but it does indicate that I can't accept them at face value. I am not trying to offend, but I can think of only two explanations: either you are not very good at statistical analysis, or you are doing the same thing the FRC does. So, forgive me, but from now on I will have to examine your statistical citations carefully before I comment.

You can cite statistics from all over the political and social map, but it's how you use them that matters, not where you got them.

[_Runtu]

However, I found the following criticism of the study interesting:

"I also have some technical concerns with the article....The effect size overall for community environment appeared to be about 0.03, a very small effect, as Cohen [5] sets 0.20 or above as a small-size effect. Even among GLB youth, the effect size between community environment and suicide appeared to be on the order of 0.10 to 0.12, still far below Cohen's guidance for a small effect, as well as much lower than most of the other effects in the model. Even with a relatively large sample, the interaction effect portrayed in Figure 1 was reported as not significant statistically (page 899). It seems that such nonsignificance proved no barrier to the author reporting the results of the interaction in Figure 1 and then using Figure 1 to call for significant policy changes. I am not sure that's how science is normally done." (See HERE)

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.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... tent-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.

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). But here's the statement in context:

In the anecdote given above about responses to the question, "What do you know about sexual minority youth," the single exception was at a youth conference. A young person answered, "We have all the fun!" This statement beautifully illustrates the resilience that characterizes the lives of most sexual minority youth. Thus, although we can easily identify the additional research that is critically needed to understand risk in the lives of sexual minority youth, there is a whole new field to build for understanding the factors that promote positive youth development.

What was the earlier anecdote?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

[_Runtu]

Something else I found about Schumm's study involving popular books as indicative of the likelihood of gay parents having gay children. It goes without saying that the people interviewed were not randomly chosen but were likely chosen because the authors thought their stories were interesting. But one of the authors, Abigail Garner, explains why her book had a roughly even number of gay and straight kids represented:

In fact, I had made a point of having a roughly even number of straight kids and second generation [gay, bisexual or transgender] kids so that both views would be evenly represented in the book. In other words, because of the goals of my book, I deliberately aimed to have 50% of the kids interviewed to be queer. Not because it is statistically reflective of the population, but to give it balance of perspective.

So, her deliberate choice to balance the interviewees is used by Schumm to show that, in that "random sample," 50% of children with gay parents turn out to be gay.

Like I always say, you can't make this stuff up. People like Schumm must assume their readers are stupid or won't check the source material. I'm guessing it's a little of both.