The latest advocacy study on same-sex parenting from Australia is getting the usual non-critical promotion from the lame-stream media.Here’s the problems with the study – and there are many, highlighted by expert Glenn Stanton:1) The authors of the study admit its significant methodology problems, which are the same problems with every other such study with similar findings…it uses a very small (500 children) non-representative sample.it is a convenience sample, meaning they used the most convenient sample collection available, by advertised in gay communities/publications/etc and interested people signed up for it.the parents participating in the study knew they were signing up for and participating in a study on the well-being of same-sex families.The information was collected via self-reports from the parent on the well-being of their child.The authors here (as well in all the other studies to date) fail to appreciate that these same-sex parents – knowing they are participating in a study on ss parented children that will have very important political and rhetorical implications – have strong reason to be more positive in their self-reporting in significant ways relative to the comparison sample of heterosexual parents whose data came from general non-partisan public health surveys. Not a small point.2) This study compared kids from two-mom and two-dad homes (only 18% were from dad/dad homes) with kids from heterosexual homes. There is no explanation whatsoever of which kinds of homes these comparison group kids were from, which again is a problem with nearly every such study. Are they all married mother/father families? They were not. How many were cohabiting, single, divorced, remarried step, etc.? The authors do not say and never address this question as important which is an incredible oversight.Ergo, the study essentially finds that kids growing up in same-sex homes look like kids that grow up in some kinds of heterosexual homes. But how do they compare to children growing up with their own married mothers and fathers? This study has no way of telling us one way or the other, and it didn’t even try.[On top of this, Do you know of anyone who has ever contended that children with same-sex parents do worse than children from all the various kinds of heterosexual homes. We have only contended that they will not do as well as children growing up with their own married mother and father. The study essentially disproves a thesis that no one is making.]3) Contains drastic contrasts in their hetero and ss parenting samples –The ss parented kids study is a non-representative sample of 500 children.The two comparison groups of kids from hetero-homes had randomly selected samples of 5,335 and 5,025 children.The ss population sample had parents with dramatically higher incomes and education status than the general population.Income: 406 out of the 500 same-sex parented kids had annual household incomes from 60- to 250K or higher compared to the average 64K annual household income of the more representative heterosexual sample group.Education: At least 384 homes in the 500 ss children sample had undergraduate degrees or above, 232 with postgraduate degrees. The same numbers for the general population are not even comparable.The study does not specify age at first parenthood, but if similar to other such studies, the same-sex parents generally have their first child in their early- to mid-thirties.Each of these mean that the measurements for the kids from same-sex homes have characteristics that strongly favor more positive outcomes among that population compared to the comparison sample, i.e. more selective, smaller sampling, dramatically higher household income and parental education status, and later age, maturity and life-stability at age of first child. These are far from anything close to equal measurements.4) Finally, the study curiously contends that children do better in ss homes but they are also more likely to suffer serious harm from social stigma regarding their family. While they don’t make this connection, nor do any of the mainstream journalists reporting on the study, it would appear that if this stigma were erased, these kids would be the new super kids, doing far better than all other kids.Which is it? Are same-sex homes triumphant or victims? It’s hard to sustain being both.And it would follow from these studies and the uncritical political trumpeting of them that we could actually be limiting children’s well-being by giving them heterosexual parents.But these are just but two examples of the over-reach these folks routinely make.FURTHER ANALYSIS FROM WHEN IT WAS FIRST RELEASED 2 YEARS AGO CLICK HEREAnd They Call This Research?OK, another set of banner front-page headlines telling us that children do just peachy keen in homosexual households. Yep, it must be some rock-solid research there. After all, the mainstream media has run with it, and the homosexual activists are delighted with it, so it must be true.What a joke. But the homosexual activists and their supporters do this all the time. We hear so many brainless headlines about how children just thrive in their alternative lifestyle households, and it always gets massive media coverage.But is this really science, or simply propaganda? Well, I will let you decide. Consider the latest “study” which all the MSM outlets have trumpeted. Indeed, the media from around the world has picked up this University of Melbourne study big time, with no questions asked as to the adequacy of the methodology.Here is just one such headline: “Children with same-sex parents happier and healthier than those from traditional families, study shows”. And what was the sound scientific method used for arriving at such conclusions? Oh, they asked for “volunteers” from their own homosexual buddies to answer a few questions.http://billmuehlenberg.com/2014/07/09/and-they-call-this-research/
View Gallery (2 Photos)Philip Welch may not be used to celebrating extra points, but his overtime PAT Saturday gave the Badgers plenty of reason to cheer.Welch’s kick wasn’t very long, but it was enough to give Wisconsin a 36-35 overtime win over Cal Poly.It was extra points that got UW into that situation to begin with. Mustang kicker Andrew Gardner missed three extra points Saturday, the last one after Cal Poly scored first in overtime, as the Badgers launched a comeback victory.“The way the season has gone, we’ve been emphasizing the finish, the finish, the finish,” head coach Bret Bielema said. “And you can’t get more of a finish than an overtime win.”Gardner’s second missed attempt kept the Mustang lead at eight points after a touchdown with 7:55 left in the game.Down the entire game, Wisconsin found itself still trailing by eight points when it got the ball with four minutes to play at its own 11-yard line after the defense forced a critical three-and-out from Cal Poly.Quarterback Dustin Sherer scrambled for a 22-yard gain and running back John Clay ran for a 27-yard gain on third-and-one to set up a Badger first-and-goal at the Mustang 3-yard line with under two minutes to play.“He was able to make plays when it was time to make plays,” running back P.J. Hill said of Sherer’s scramble. “It was a real crucial situation, and he made something out of it.”Hill rushed for a touchdown on first down, cutting the lead to two points. Wisconsin called the same play on the critical two-point conversion and Hill scored to tie the game at 29.“We’ve got big bodies, and we wanted to lean on them,” Bielema said of the play call.“I think it took Paul Chryst about .5 seconds to call that two-point conversion play because he knew what was there and what was going to be there.”After Jake West missed his 46-yard field goal attempt with eight seconds left in the game, the two teams headed to overtime.Things didn’t start well in the extra period. Cal Poly scored on the first play of overtime when quarterback Jonathan Dally connected on a 25-yard touchdown pass to Ramses Barden.For the third time in the game, however, Gardner’s kick went too far to the right, and when the kick hit the upright the Badgers knew they had a chance to steal a victory.After Clay scored on a 6-yard run three plays later, it was all up to Welch to win the game.“Hoping not to miss it,” Welch said, “because I probably would have been killed or something.”And after the freshman converted his kick, all that was left to do was celebrate.“I was just trying to hit it, like any other kick,” Welch said. “PAT’s — you’re supposed to make every one.”For four quarters, the Mustangs gave the Badgers a scare.Cal Poly controlled the ball for nearly twice as long as Wisconsin and finished the game with 276 rushing yards.“They did a good job executing,” linebacker Culmer St. Jean said. “They did a good job mixing up the plays and keeping us on our toes.”The Mustangs also converted on nine-of-17 third-down attempts.“Cal Poly’s got a good offense and they run the ball the majority of the time. … It was something we’ve never seen before,” defensive lineman Mike Newkirk said.Dally’s 2-yard run with just under five minutes left in the first half put Cal Poly up 20-7. UW was able to cut the deficit, however, when wide receiver Nick Toon caught his first career touchdown pass with 28 seconds left in the half.A Gardner field goal extended the lead in the third quarter, but Hill scored on a 10-yard run to cut the lead to two points late in the third quarter.With Cal Poly about to attempt a field goal on its next possession, however, UW got called for a penalty, allowing the Mustangs to convert a fourth down that led to James Noble’s touchdown that put the score at 29-21.It was the second straight week the Badgers had to muster a come-from-behind win. Last weekend Wisconsin erased a 21-7 halftime deficit in its win over Minnesota.Though Cal Poly is a Football Championship Division team, the Mustangs entered the game with an 8-1 record on the season.With the win, Wisconsin finishes the regular season with a 7-5 record.