• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay dads' brains show activity akin to both parents': study

Ceist said:
Perhaps it might help if you actually read the article I referred to?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a study and a review article?

More from the article:
"Studies of primary caretaker married fathers; egalitarian coparenting heterosexual couples; single mother or fathers after a death divorce or desertion; heterosexual single mothers by accident or choice; lesbian mothers and gay fathers after heterosexual divorce; planned lesbian motherhood through donor insemination (DI) or adoption; planned gay fatherhood through surrogacy or coparenting with women"​

It's also not difficult to find research on adoptive parents, foster parents, kinship carers, grandparents, extended families etc

So basically your statement is just nonsense.
Click to expand...
And even more from the article... the portion you cut out preceeding the above statement:
"There is no clearly identified body of research, however, to which we can easily turn. An unusually diffuse array of literatures bears indirectly on these questions..."
​

Maybe you can succeed where they failed and uncover an actual research study that tested the assertion that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children."

More likely, you'll continue to post glorified lit reviews of research that sort of addresses a point that you'd like to be true.
 
Taylor said:
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a study and a review article?


And even more from the article... the portion you cut out preceeding the above statement:
"There is no clearly identified body of research, however, to which we can easily turn. An unusually diffuse array of literatures bears indirectly on these questions..."
​

Maybe you can succeed where they failed and uncover an actual research study that tested the assertion that "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children."

More likely, you'll continue to post glorified lit reviews of research that sort of addresses a point that you'd like to be true.
Click to expand...
The article I linked to was not just a literature review. It was a meta-analysis of 81 studies- which you might have known had you bothered to read it. Unless you don't know the difference?

The point you seem to be completely missing is that the assertion of "compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children." is not backed up by research.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
Maybe it's just me but I find people in general can be hard to deal with at times.
Click to expand...

Yes but they'd rather say that than "I can't get laid / no chick will come near me." Since people do tend to socialize with same sex (at least until the 'chain' of marriage is on them), it's somewhat believable when they talk of being jealous.
 
Ceist said:
The article I linked to was not just a literature review. It was a meta-analysis of 81 studies- which you might have known had you bothered to read it. Unless you don't know the difference?.
Click to expand...
That's funny, I actually do know the difference, whereas you clearly do not. Believe me, there is much more to a meta-analysis than summarizing individual studies in terms of "less than" and "greater than" relationships. You actually have to do something called math, lol.
 
Taylor said:
That's funny, I actually do know the difference, whereas you clearly do not. Believe me, there is much more to a meta-analysis than summarizing individual studies in terms of "less than" and "greater than" relationships. You actually have to do something called math, lol.
Click to expand...
You called the research paper a lit review, so clearly you hadn't even read it when you wrote that.

And they did do 'something called math'.

But you are still completely missing the point. Or are you purposefully trying to deflect?
 
Last edited:
Ceist said:
You called the research paper a lit review, so clearly you hadn't even read it when you wrote that.
Click to expand...
I called it a review article (which it is) and a "glorified lit review" which was just poking a little fun. I believe they'd call it something like a "systematic review."

And they did do 'something called math'.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, they calculated this average:

"as many as 20% (5/25) of the findings shown might be noise."​

AND a couple of standard deviations! Let's call it a meta analysis!! :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom