Box Turtle Bulletin » Walter R. Schumm
Convenience samples have many weaknesses, and one of the weaknesses is that they tend to be small. A “meta-analysis” is intended to correct that problem. To perform a meta-analysis, a researcher collects a bunch of other studies and combines all of the data from their samples, re-crunches the data, and sees which trends hold up in the much larger sample. This too, is valuable, although it also has its pitfalls. It’s not important to go into them here, but for our purposes it’s fair to say that meta-analysis techniques are useful — as long as the studies gathered for the meta-analysis contain samples that were similarly constructed and were meant to examine the same set of questions. And that also means that the smaller samples were somewhat similarly random, even if they were not statistically representative. The larger meta-analysis retains the same weakness of the smaller random-but-not-representatives samples, but with the larger combined sample, it can tend to diminish some of the quirks (or “outliers”) of the smaller samples. These kinds of studies can be useful in identifying trends and correlations, but they cannot be used to extrapolate behaviors or conditions to the population as a whole.
But Schumm’s “meta-analysis” (and Cameron’s before him) doesn’t even have the benefit of being built off of random convenience samples. There were no convenience samples in any of the ten prior works that Schumm used for his meta-analysis. In fact, they weren’t even professional studies. They were popular books!
That’s right, each of the ten sources that Schumm used to construct his “meta-analysis” were from general-audience books about LGBT parenting and families, most of which are available on Amazon.com. Schumm read the books, took notes on each parent and child described in the book, examined their histories, and counted up who was gay and who was straight among the kids. The ten books were:
◾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
The first three were also used in Cameron’s 2006 paper. Schumm comments these books, saying:
The authors of these ten books have done important data collection for the entire scientific community. While their samples may not be random, they may be no worse than the convenience and snowball samples used in much of previous researcher with gay and lesbian parents; certainly their combined dataset is far larger than that of the early studies on gay and lesbian parenting.
This is utter nonsense. None of the books contained any semblance of a sample — not even a convenience sample, and the authors certainly didn’t do anything approaching an ”important data collection” by any stretch of the imagination. What they did was tell stories, or, rather, helped the families themselves to tell their own stories. The people chosen in each of these volumes were were not picked according to a pre-defined criteria in the manner in which a researcher would construct a sample. They were chosen solely because the authors and editors thought their stories were compelling
That being said…we have differing views, yet…
1. Noticed the “some”. Some state supreme courts.
Very little some… almost lonesome. Almost none, comparatively.
Should, sorry to have to say, stay that way. What gave credibility in the eyes of everyone, EVERYONE, African Americans fought Civil Rights pretty much straight up, proud and righteous, honestly righteous. Those who had never had to take a side, just comfortable, living, lettin be, gettin along, suddenly chanced to see it starkly, for what it was,,, rebelled against that … that thick stinky fertilizer, surface deep but rich soiled there in the South.
In contrast, the same sex marriage movement....
Battles in courts, sometimes a legislature, removed from the people, just like France [tangentially] … where there are not the votes for it, it de facto won’t happen. If you try to force, de jure, you often slow it down. People have to accept willingly, people in this country have come miles and miles on the whole Gay issue. But when pushed hard, like by a salesman at a car dealership, we tend to shy in the other direction.
We’ve been really tolerant, despite conflicting with most’s faith. Should be appreciated, acknowledged, honored.
There are times to draw lines.
2. Don’t really keep either eye pealed on Europe I am guessing? Can’t envision the coming Cassandra, cannot see that old locomotive puffing for the wooden bridge, bridge over the deep gash of a mountain pass. Look closer, wooden spars falling away as we watch, bridge collapsing as the train approaches... Europe these days.
This isn’t about Europe. We can sort of do a real time autopsy before the fact. Your opinion about European society, think its strong? Strong enough? Wasn’t just this current crisis though, unhappily for liberals, its more just plain liberal, too liberal, policy in general. Yes, my opinion, with points, solid. This post is already too long, however.
Also apropos, the old adage, watch what you ask for, you might just get it. Europe got it, and it is contagious.
What y’all don’t seem to get is that gay movement has not been a, no pun intended either time, straight on assault as stated previously. Lots of short term termiting, lacing the entire structure upon which we have built a strong nation… done with many hardly even realizing it…just like Europe, starting much earlier, hit much harder.
2a. A Court case ruling huh? One? What about, what was the rulling…?? see what you did, now I’m on the edge of my seat. Soooo not convincing tho, besides, you had already made some head feints that direction, straw man called.
3. Yes, I did clarify, you understand the subtlety. Rarely used violence, on occasion, ends the job. Not a big advocate, but when used…hard and fast. Make it hurt so bad others won’t try, unless just stupid suicidal. Dance back Ali like, untouched if possible.
4. Nearly all the gay culture WAS criminal. See, all those other minority groups you hesitate to support, currently illegal, too. Easily changed, assisted by this, those and many leagues of others. Then unhindered, a now unstoppable force no longer meeting an immovable object…
Society crumbles, a tide slicing though sand castles.
5. Stripping away/adding special rights, whichever way necessary for certain groups wanting... whatever. Basis upon which to deny them? After? None. Hey, you gave that to same sex folks, cries of discrimination ring from all sides [and they would be right]… so how legally to stop much of anything after? You won’t be able.
Society crumble crumble crumbling.
Interesting thought experiment. If rape were made legal, how long would it be before people stopped struggling against? Let’s say, with just the right backing, or packing, a court or two, or the courts in general, started ruling in their favor, maybe a legislature somewhere or three joined… The national legislature bonded with them, passed the law… but the people were against it… then what?
Anybody see France in this frame?
All is uncomfortable even to think about, suffice to say, could come to pass, doubting it ostensibly, sure, seems too repugnant. See, even a similar past. Surely cannot be certain, not at all certain it wouldn’t.
6. Give ya slack on this one too, cause you are not really incorrect, you were just slinging so parameters were in order.
7. Sorry, just not the case… but again, its hardly enough to quibble over.
8. Already dealt with this continued fail…
I hardly see how Schumm can be faulted here for simply attempting to address an issue which many more "politically correct" researchers have decided to avoid like the plague out of fear of creating controversy.
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her." -- G.K. Chesterton
Editorial and Scientific Review Board
Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, PhD [European Editor]
Tony B. Bieber, PhD [Psychologist, PC]
Kirk Cameron, PhD [Statistical Scientist. Author of over 60 journal articles, papers, and reports. Research interests: examining the misuse of statistics in psychology, sociology, and biomedicine, especially in sexuality and health research]
Paul Cameron, PhD [American Editor]
Carlin Freeberg, PhD [Retired licensed psychologist and teacher. Has taught grade 4 through graduate school. Academic specialties: research design and measurement, cognition, human development, change strategies. Research: juvenile offender rehabilitation, developing community support systems, identifying the mentally ill in jail settings]
Thomas Landess, PhD [Former Dean, Univ. of Dallas]
Ralph E. Mayberry, MD [FAAFP; Board Certified Family Physician]
Steven Rice, MD [Clinical Assistant Professor, Departments of Psychiatry and Family Medicine, University of Tennessee Memphis School of Medicine]
John Raney, MD [DABPN; FACFE; Forensic psychiatrist]
Nathaniel Lehrman, MD [Clinical Director (retired), Kingsboro Psychiatric Center, Brooklyn, NY; former Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Downstate Medical Center, State Univ. of NY; certified in psychiatry and administrative psychiatry; graduate, Comprehensive Course in Psychoanalysis, NY Medical College]
Walter R. Schumm, PhD [Published over 270 journal articles and book chapters and coedited one major text on family theory and research methodology. Research Scholar for US Army Research Institute; Fellow of National Council on Family Relations. Known for his theory of differential risk relative to same-sex and mixed-sex relationships and his critiques of biased research in area of same-sex parenting]
Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior - Editorial/Review Board
And coming to the conclusion that same sex parents are somehow harmful to the children they raise based on deviant research is deviant.
Why are you engaging in deviant behavior, and should your deviant behavior justify a prohibition on you raising children?
Frankly, regardless of whether the sample was large enough or not, the fact of the matter remains that there is strong circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that children raised in homosexual households have a greater chance of turning out to be homosexual themselves.
This shouldn't be ignored.
P.S. Flagrantly misusing words won't help your argument. My definition of the term "deviant" is literally the exact definition used by most dictionaries.
I'm sorry that people like you apparently like to forget facts like these when it is inconvenient to your ideology.Definition of DEVIANT
: deviating especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>
"Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her." -- G.K. Chesterton
so what YOU think is an accepted norm is just your OPINION. LMAO
nothign like owning yourself, seems the person forgetting FACTS is you since they just proved you wrong.