What’s wrong with that, mhaze?

<<Here we have a paper with a sample size of 44(!) and a control of 44.>>>>

That’s a reasonable amount (albeit slightly small) for a study of this kind. It sounds to me like you think that all studies need to have sample sizes in the thousands Well, that’s not always possible, or even necessary. Sometimes studies hit what is referred to as a “saturation point”.

<<Now with a sample size of 44 I could probably prove that Coke is a health food.>>

How so?

<<What's worse, the sample is effectively self-selected …>>

You mean the subjects selected themselves? I don’t see where it says that.

<<<… and was put together for another project - never a good practice.>>

Never? No, that’s fine in a lot of cases. It depends on the data and the research question.

<<Within the paper they find that there a few statistical differences between the groups but with a sample of 44 it would be astounding to find any such differences.>>

Why’s that? How did Professor mhaze come to this determination?

<<But here's the kicker …>>

I can’t wait!

<<… this 44 is arrived at by rejecting ALL of the kids with male same-sex parents.>>

Oh, the humanity!

Yes, that’s because the sample size was smallish. To include gay-male parents, you would need to increase the sample size, if comparing same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples. It’s also much easier to find lesbian parents.

<<The reason they say is to simplify matters because apparently doing calculations on a sample of 50 is so much more complex than doing it on 44.>>

Huh? How did you determine that gay-male couples could have been included if they just upped it to 50? As a guesstimate, I'd say that they would need to have at least doubled the sample size to have similar accuracy with gay-male couples included.

<<We can only speculate why they were rejected …>>

Who? Gay-male couples? They told you. Adding gay-male couples would have added additional variables into the mix, which would then require a far greater sample size.

Regarding slavery, I came accross an article that suggested slavery was
a milepost on the way to a developed society.
It seems slaves were a source of energy for tasks where animals could not be used.
The Roman Empire collapsed when the silver mines output declined when
slaves became too expensive. It was not just those two factors that
caused its collapse but it certainly was caused by a decline in net energy.
So slaves were a necessary way station in the climb to our present civilisation.

Dear AJ,

Please read the following link. It explains a great
deal that may be of interest:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-frank-attacking-gay-rights-with-flawed-science-20151204-story.html

Dear Josephus,

Bunkum!

I repeat the quote;

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. 
Exodus 21:20-21

So beating to within an inch of their life was fine?

And this?

“In Christian society all are equal male or female, slave or free.”

Don't be an idiot.

Anyway the US is arguably the most Christianised first world country yet the horrendous treatment of slaves will forever stain its history.

Any version of a faith that forces one to become an apologist for slavery must be deemed highly questionable by any thinking person.

Hi Foxy, you article said;

"Gay parents “tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,” said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. “That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.”

I would apply that to heterosexual parents as well who, chose to be parents.

My partners youngest son and wife, could not have children, her sister had a baby for them (legally adopted). Two more loving parents you could not find. He is now 3 and has two mums and two dads, he is a well adjusted and normal child in every way. His biological parents have 5 children of their own.

As we wrestle with the concept of family in our society, others such as Maori society which has a much greater concept of family through the notion of the extended family have a different understanding of the position of children within the family. It is common place for children to be brought up by sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts, grandparents etc. What constitutes a normal family is certainly debatable.

Dear Foxy,

Thanks for the link to the article. No surprises there. Yes, 73 studies out of the 77 noted all pointed in one direction. I’m not aware of any studies, suggesting that children of same-sex parents fare worse than others, that haven’t been requested by a conservative interest group or carried out by a researcher with a barrow to push.

A detailed examination of the problems with the Regnerus study mentioned can be found at http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201206120002.

Given the difficulty of studying something as complex as society, all social research projects are going to have their strengths and limitations, so there’s hardly any medals for pointing to problems in any given social research project. But when the vast majority of studies all point in the one direction, one tends to more readily smell a rat when an outlier contradicts them.